THE EMPORTARCE AND {WACT OF THE 1955 AND 1956. GGVEWENT POTATO DWERSEON WWW ON 'K’HE POTATO EWUSTRY Thesis for Hm Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY .Ia'ames Harold Cothern 1957 HIE-3i". _,_ . -A LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘ 4,, -‘4 va fg.#~ 4‘ ‘l—urw“ THE.INEURTANCE AND INPACT OF THE 1955 AND 1956 comm-3m POTATO DIVERSI ON 3200mm ON THE POTATO INDUSTRX By James Harold Cothern A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture, Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASI'ER OF SCIEDDE Department of Agricultural Economics 195 7 / _.7.. 53 g, 2.20/76- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to all those who assisted in the development of this study. Special thanks are especially extended to Dr. Dale Hathaway for his guidance in developing the framework for this study and for his con- structive criticisms during its progress. The author is grateful to Dr. L. L. Boger, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, for financial aid in the form of a research assistantship. I Credit is due the members of the statistical pool of the Depart- ment of Agricultural Economics who assisted in the computational work. Thanks is also expressed to Mrs. Jill Fronek and Miss Joyce Arts for typing the original manuscript. Also, to C. J. Borum and other personnel of the Office of the State Agricultural Statistician, the author wishes to express his thanks for their aid in the collection of some of the essential data. Special thanks is also extended to Mr. J. L. Buntin, Officer in Charge of Trans- portation Reports, United States Department of Agriculture, for the loan of some of the necessary transportation reports. Finally, the author is indebted to his wife for her constant aid and emouragement throughout the study and for her painstaking effort in typing the final manuscript. The author assumes full responsibility for any errors that may appear in the manuscript. James Harold Cothern ii THE IMPCRTANCE AND IMPACT OF THE 1955 AND 1956 covmmm POTATO DIVERSION PROGRAM ON THE POTATO INDUSTRY 135’ James Harold Cothern AN’ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture, Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIEMIE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1957 Approved / / AN'ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study was to determine the effective- ness of the United States Department of Agriculture's Irish Potato Diversion Program XMD 3A. This program was first introduced in 1955 and has been in operation during parts of 1956 and 1957. The program was placed into effect to “aid in the successful marketing of 1955 and 1956 crop potatoes and to assure growers that the Department of Agriculture stood ready to assist in the development of a sound ap- proach in meeting marketing problems created by surplus problems". The implicit assumption present was that price could be increased by diverting sufficient quantities of lower grade potatoes from the market. A main objective of this study was to determine if the govern- ment program in operation during 1955 and 1956 succeeded in diverting a sufficient quantity of Specification A potatoes from the market to alter seasonal marketings and, hence, price in these two years. After determining the feasibility of their use, indexes of seasonal variation for the years 1929-1955 were computed to obtain an estimate of the actual monthly marketings for the states partici— pating in the program in 1955 and 1956. These indexes were computed from carlot shipments data by two alternative methods, but results from only one of the methods weremed in the study. The normal seasonal marketing pattern of the states taking part in the program in 1955 and 1956 was then tested against the actual seasonal marketing pattern in these states during 1955 and 1956. Relatively little change in the marketing pattern of these states was iv observed during this time. The magnitude of the diversion program during 1955 and 1956 was also analyzed. Diversion states succeeded in diverting four and one- half per cent of total United States production in 1955 and slightly over seven and one-half per cent in 1956. Total cost of the program was slightly over three million dollars in 1955 and almost five million dollars in 1956. The diversion program was much more widely utilized in Maine than in any of the other states. Maine producers diverted 20 and 30 per cent of total Paine production in 1955 and 1956 respec- tively. Shifts in the timing of the diversion program and possible reasons for these shifts were analyzed. It appears that the graduated payment plan adopted by the United States Department of Agriculture which was designed to divert a large quantity of potatoes early in the marketing year did not accomplish this objective during the 1956 marketing year. Thus, it appears that the program became a means to supplement income on lower grades of potatoes during the large 1956 crop marketing year. The reason for this was that generally the diversion payment was higher than the market price for these potatoes during the spring of 1956. As the volume of diversions was not great in 1955 and no overall changes due to the operation of the diversion program were noticed, it was also concluded that the Urrited States Department of Agriculture diver- sion program did not contribute to the record prices for potatoes in the spring of 1956. It also appears that the graduated payment plan, as it exists today, will not be able to accomplish a sufficient volume of diversions to improve price in a year in which the crop is large. CHAPI' FR II III TABLE OF CONTENTS IM'RODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Background Information................................. Description Of DiVOTSiOD Program XMD 3A0...oooo.oo¢eooo Nature Of the PrObIBMOooooooooeooooooooooeoooooooo.coco SCOPO and Purpose Of thfl StudYooeoooooooooe0.00.0000... MHODOMOOOOOOO00000000000000.000000000000000000000. The SEMPleoooooo00000000000000.0000...coo...oooooeooooo sources 0f DataOOOOOOOOOoOO0000000000000...oo0000000000 thhOdS Of ADBIYSiSQOOQOQOOQOQOQOOooooooooooooooooooeoo Determining Feasibility of the Carlot Shipments MbthOdOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0000... Computing and Analyzing the Seasonal Index of Carlot Shipments....o............................. The Quantity Relatives thhOdoooooooeoooeoooo The Twelve Month Moving Average Method....... Determining the Monthly Amplitude of Diversions... The‘Test Of Significance.......................... Limitation.of the Study........................... THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DIVERSION STATES IN NATIONAL PRODUCTION AND THE NORMAL MARKETING PATTERN IN OER- TMN DIVESION STATEOOOOOOOOCO0.0.0.0....OOOOCOOOOOOOO Importance of Potato Production in the Diversion States Construction of an Indeoc of Marketings in the Five States Studiedeoooooeoooeooooooo.ooooooo.ocoo-cocoooooo The Marketing Pattern in the Five States Parti- cipating in the Diversion Program as Measured by carIOt Shipments-0......o.....no................o. THE DIVERSION mOGRAH AND SHIFTS IN THE TIMLm OF THE DIVERSION macaw, 1955 AND 1956....................... The Diversion PrograM.................................. Possible Reasons for the Shifts in Timing of the DiverSiOnBOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE SEASONAL MARKETII‘B PATTERN IN THE FIVE STATES DURII‘G THE OPERATION OF THE DIVESION mm................ Summary of the Aggregate Effect of the Diversion Pro- 81.331.00.000...00.000000000000000...cocooooooooooooooooo 'U A 5 Swuw P BEBEGF t5 GIGS 23 31 38 38 h? 1&9 57 I I 1 l I e v C O a O 9 a 0 v I O ' h ‘ " ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 U V O I a 'l i U 9 C I . 1 w c a 'I O 0 I a I I I o a Q o ‘- A I 5 ~ g n u u -' 1 - V - . - v Q 0 I Q I Q A O 'llfilcuodllat .19... ‘~."O..o-‘10.Q‘-JOQODQ Iolsqolcq-oII‘OIO‘..OQ-~9‘§;-~vg.-..~.I10105l’ Dl'oooOOOQ-ollloov9~0u'loo‘lfiliiuflbtldnCIO ‘CQ'nIOQflfloII.“1.O.IQ.0‘.“1QI.IOUO‘.'..Q.Q .90.IQOQI-D'OOCIQO.IIQVVI. (OD-9.00..-one-QQOAQRQI-Inl. gs~cocgouwcaflonwoongn1.u11'Raiongn19000o. .-.. Q I O V . Q “ I O a n 9 I u u \ II 1 1 1 n 1 | a 4 O a 0 O o l O 0 O 0 O O o o 5 Q o v t a a 1 I a O 'c ‘I \ u- . q . - N-bl191.."3..OOQOJVQIUO“.~'09.... II‘V‘iI'IIO‘DOOD'I-“D-O‘!I'9"“1‘4.°l.-.I¢IHQ IQQIOOODlQOQC'... 'QI'QU‘I‘D‘IQ.0.Otong.oGQOIQCIW~CI~U-‘O.¢O~~‘IIV‘O'.. TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page VI A DISCUSSION OF RECOM’IENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE DIVERSION PROGRAM. 59 REWiSiOH.Of Payments............................... S9 A Possible Plan for Revision of Payments........... 61.; VII SW AND commSIOIGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO 6? Summary............................................ 67 COHCluaionSeooeooooococo...oeo.....ooeooo.oooooo.oo 67 BIBIlmH-IYOCOO00.............O................O...00...... 7O APPEmICEOOOOOOOO0..0..COO...O0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 72 vii 4.1... 10.57... TABLE LIST OF TABLES Potatoes, United States: Acreage planted, 19142-1957; acreage harvested, yield per acre, season average price per hundred WEight, l9h2-l957oooeo00000000000 Relation of estimated merchantible stocks to merchantible stocks on January 1 reported by U.S.D.A. in five diver- sion stateSOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0000000000000QOOOOO0.00000. The normal marketing pattern in five diversion states computed by two alternative methods... ....... ... ... ..... Cumulative diversion, 1955 and 1956000....0.000.000.0000 Importance and timing of diversions in five diversion States, 1955-1956000000000000oneoooooooooeoocooooooeoooo The relative magnitude of diversions in five important diversion states during the three payment periods....... Some average monthly shipping point potato prices ( 2 inCh minimum or u ounce washed)......................... The seasonal marketing pattern during the operation of the programoooo......................................... viii Page 25 33 38 ’40 51 53 O Outwuuhufit "T‘ICIAOQOC nl-gnaguen anesotomncup‘anolxnneo IIiQIQQC 1.1""l‘|.v.""11.01....‘-.1'.‘ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Information The price support programs for potatoes, especially those of the post war era, have been a subject of much controversy. The post war support programs for potatoes were annually the most expensive crop support program for the government to operate through 1956. It has been argued that by reducing the element of risk, the support programs have encouraged the adoption of intensive farming practices in raising potatoes that might not otherwise be undertaken. It has also been argued that the government has paid for this decrease in risk. By 1951 opposition to a government program in potatoes had become so strong that Congress directed that no further price support should be provided in potatoes unless marketing quotas were in effect.1 It was argued that acreage had declined but yield per acre had more than offset the reduction in acreage. The main feeling was that re- duction in risk was the key factor in causing these increased yields. Before discussing the most recent of the U.S.D.A. purchase programs relating to potatoes it is necessary to review some of the programs and situations existing in the post war period leading up to Potato Diversion Program XMD 3A, the most recent government effort 1Public Law A71, 81st Congress, 2nd Session. -2- to buoy up the price of the commodity. As Benedict and Stine point out, the potato industry is a highly speculative business in the absence of price supports.2 Both income and price elasticity of demand for the product are low and production varies substantially from year to year.3 Consequently there are wide year to year fluctuations in prices. Per capita consumption has also declined during the last few decades. Population in the United States has increased by more than 50 per cent in the last M) years, but the total consumption of potatoes for food is approximately the same as it was in 1910. Cochrane, Sorenson, and Gray caution, however, that the steep decline in per capita consumption should not be extrapolated bgond 1950 for two reasons. First, the impact of declining immigra- tion has about leveled off; and secondly, a natural adjustment in the consumption level may have run its course.’4 Keeping this word of cau- tion in mind it is still safe to assume that growth in yield has sur- passed an increase in consumption potential through population growth. The government first took steps to alleviate this situation by bolstering 2Murray R. Benedict and Oscar C. Stine, The AEicultural Commodity Pro ams: Two Decades _o_f Experience (New York: _The Twentieth Century 56): POW 3o. Nfllton Shuffett has estimated the price elasticity of potatoes at the farm level to be -.h7 for the early commercial crop, -.25 for the late surplus crop, and a .h6 and .35 income elasticity respectively for these two crops. See D. Milton Shuffett, The Demand and Price Structure for Selected V etables (U.S. Department oT-Igncufi _e—Tec Fin-Ica EleEln ITO ’ Po 1‘Roger W. Gray, Vernon L. Sorenson, and Willard Cochrane, A2 Economic Analysis__ of the In act of Government Pro ams _o_n t__he Potato Ifidustr in the U.S. TUTIiversity— of Minnesota Experiment Station: Nora-1 CentraI-egional Publication No. 142, June, 1951;), p. 19. ..3- the price of potatoes along with other commodities during the depres- sion. Potato price supports at this time had no great effect, except, perhaps, a slight addition to aggregate income. Since they had no great effect on price prior to 19M, they will not be discussed here.5 The expanded demand for agricultural commodities dln'ing the war years brought an end to the problem of surplus production, and instead, emphasis was placed on expanding and stimulating agricultural production. Thus the key effect on production, that of the elimination of uncertainty via price supports, was overlooked for the time being. Knowing that there was and would continue to be a heavy wartime demand for agricultural products, Congress passed the Steagall Amendment in 19h2. This act gave the Secretary of Agriculture certain powers in periods of wartime emer- gency. If he found it necessary to encourage production of non-basic agriculture commodities, he could, by maidng a public announcement of such needs, thus procure funds to support the needed commodity at at least 85 per cent of parity. These conditions were altered by the Stabilization Act of 19142 which raised the minimum support level to 90 per cent of parity until two years after the cessation of hostilities, which turned out to be December 31, 19h8. These two items were of utmost importance in potato legislation. In return for the needed production during wartime the government had guaranteed to alleviate or remove the price uncertainty during and two years after the war. No one knew how long the war would last, so the difficulties the government would have in the post war administration of such a measure could not be foreseen. The commodity was sufficiently 5Benedict and Stine, Cochrane, Gray and Sorenson both give interesting accounts of the programs during the 1930's. See Benedict and Stine, 93. 922., pp. h18-h22, Cochrane, Gray and Sorenson, 92. gi_t_., pp. 311-39. -h- different from other commodities in the Steagall legislation to require special legislation in a very short time; hence, it could possibly have been thought out better with longer term planning. The parity base chosen for potatoes may have been too high. A lower rate of payment might still have induced needed production for wartime. The Steagall legislation which was instituted to induce needed production was replaced by a more restrictive type of legislation in 19h9. The Commodity Credit Corporation in 19% had bought about 30 per cent of the 19h8 crop (81.6 million hundred weight) and so much public indignation surrounded the governments' activities in this field that the entire support program was threatened. Public and congressional opposition became so. great that a reduction in the percentage of parity at which potatoes were supported was included in the 19149 Act. Subsequently, potatoes were to be supported from 60 to 90 per cent of parity as the Secretary of Agriculture mn'ght determine to be needed or appropriate. The reduction in support levels for the 19119 and 1950 crOps tended to discourage production in some areas, but higher yields per acre resulted in continuing over-all surpluses. The last government modification of this legislation came with the enactment of Public Law 1171 in 1950 which placed a further restriction on supports in that no portion of the 1951 crop would be supported unless marketing quotas were in effect (Public Law 1171, Blst Congress, 2nd section). Since there was no legislation providing for marketing quotas on potatoes, this meant there could be no price supports unless new legislation was passed.6 6For a detailed treatment of the support laws enacted in this period see Benedict and Stine, 22. 3113., pp. 1122-185, or Cochrane, Sorenson, and Gray, 33. 31.3., Appendix A, pp. 185-226. - 5 - Table 1 illustrates some of the changes occurring during the potato price support programs. TABLE l.-Potatoes, United States: Acreage planted, 19h2-l957; acreage harvested, yield per acre, season average price per hundred weight, 131112-1957“ Seas on average Yield price per cwt. Acreage Acreage per Production Sold received by farmers planted harvested harvested 1000 weighted by: 1000 A. 1000 A. acre (cwt.) 1000 cwt. cwt. Sfies Production 19h2 2755.1 2670.8 82.8 221,339 15h,060 1.90 1.90 19113 33511.7 3239.0 85.0 275,332 197,h10.8 2.10 2.13 19th 2878.2 2779.8 82.9 230,355 17h,531 2.h0 2.h5 19h5 2728.7 266h.3 9h.h 251.639 19h.181 2.30 2.33 1916 2570.6 2526.6 115.7 292,389 235,768.8 2.01 2.03 191:? 2033.6 2001.3 116.6 233,391 188,893.63 2.67 2.68 1918 2007.3 1980.7 136.2 269,937 225,633 2.53 2.55 19h9 1775.1 1755.3 137.3 2h0,950 198,565 2.10 2.13 1950 1713.h 1697.9 152.6 259,112 216,733 1.50 1951 1373.2 13h8.5 1h5.2 195,761 161,902 2.68 1952 1h16.8 1397.h 151.1 211,095 177,258 3.21 1953 1562.6 1536.1 150.8 231,679 192,396 1.31 195k lh31.2 1h12.6 155.h 219,5h7 183,hh0 2.15 1955 1160.5 1&13.6 160.6 227,0h6 191,802 1.77 1.79 1956 1h06.3 1385.5 175.9 2h3,716 206,872 2.02 2.01 *Statistical Bulletin No. 122, Potatoes ( Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of AgricuItm-al Economics, March, 1953); Statistical Bulletin No. 190, Potatoes-«Sweetpotatoes (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, August, 1956); and Potatoes and Sweetpotatoes (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Depart- ment of Agri'cuIture, Agrfiultural Marketing Service, August, 1957). Yield per acre has increased steadily from 191:,2 through the record 1956 crop year. Acreage planted and harvested evidenced. a downward trend from 19113 until 1952. This trend was reversed in 1952 but since has been downward» Among the reasons for this change in 1952 were: (1) production was at a very low level in 1951 due to the withdrawal of price supports; and (2) the Korean War broke out between the 1950 -6- and 1951 crops causing potato prices to rise in 1951 and to reach a record level in 1952. Acreage planted and harvested declined slowly in the first post war years of the support programs as the parity base was adjusted down- ward. Production, however, remained well above 200 million hundredweight per year until 1950, the last year of a formal support program. In- creased yield per acre accounted in part for this stability. The record price level in 1952 encouraged increased plantings in 1953. As a result the seasonal average price per hundredweight received by farmers for the 1953 crop dropped to $1.31, which was the lowest seasonal average price received since 19111. High production and low prices were predicted by some sources for 1951;. After the removal of price supports uncertainty returned to future potato prices, and concern was expressed publicly by a group of industry representatives which met in Washington in February, 19514. A provision of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 19514 amended the act of 19149 and allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to use Section 32 funds for limited assistance to the potato industry if he chose to take such action.7 Although the Secretary of Agriculture had used Section 32 funds for this purpose before, ($25.5 million on the 19116 crop alone) Secretary Benson declined to use them in 1951. as "too little and too late". This set the 7Section 32 of Public Law 320, 7hth Congress, 1935, amended the AAA of 1933 by allocating 30 per cent of collections from tariffs on all dutiable imports to the Secretary of Agriculture for his use to "(1) encourage the exportation of agricultural commodities.... (2) encourage domestic consump- tion of such commodities...“ by diverting them.... from their utilization.... among persons in lower income groups...., and (3) re-establish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in connection with the normal produc- tion of any agricultural commodity for domestic account." See Rainier Schickele, Agricultural Policy (New York: McCraw Hill, 19514), p. 227. IQ‘II ‘0']. 10" -7- stage for the 1955 program, however, which went into effect in the fall of 1955. Indicated total production.in.1955 appeared to be 230 million hundred weight which.was around 8 per cent higher than l95h and about the same as in 1953 when prices were quite low. IRepresentatives of the potato industry met in Chicago in.August, 1955, to tighten regulations in areas operating under marketing agreements. iRepresentatives of the states that attended agreed to withhold all culls plus 20 per cent of remaining potatoes from the market, despite the absence of a visible means of enforcement. ‘With these reassuring signs of co-operation from the producing areas, the Agricultural Marketing Service, late in August of 1955, announced a program to stimulate diversion of lower grade potatoes into the manufacture of starch or for livestock feed. Description _o_i: Diversion Program £42 3&8 General Statement In order to encourage the domestic consumption of fresh.Irish potatoes and to divert quantities from the normal channels of trade and commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture was given the power to use Section 32 (Public Law 320, 7hth Congress, 1935) funds for diversion of potatoes to livestock feed and for starch. The program is administered under the general direction or super- vision of the Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agriculture Market- ing Service and in the field is carried out by the Commodity Stabilization Service. The area in.which the program operated in 1955 and 1956 comprised 8See Appendix I for a detailed description of the law pertaining to the programu -8... those states that were able to work out an acceptable marketing plan. In 1955 Colorado, Idaho, Maine,'Washington, Oregon, parts of California and Pennsylvania, and Utah participated in the program. In 1956 Colorado, Idaho, Maine,‘Washington, Oregon, and parts of California, Fannesota, North Dakota, and New York participated. The 1955 program started in September and ended May 31, 1956. The 1956 program started in October and ended June 30, 1957. The pay- ments for Specification A potatoes were 50 cents per hundredweight to December 31, ’40 cents per hundredweight during January, February, and March, and 30 cents per hundredweight until the termination of the pro- gram which would be no later than June 30. Specification A potatoes were those that equaled or exceeded the quality requirements for U.S. No. 2 potatoes and certain diameter and weight Specifications. (See Appendix I). To comply with the program the person.wishing to claim the diversion payments had to agree to divert all quantities under the program to either starch or livestock uses.‘Written forms were filed with state officers as to quantity and grade differences. To claim payment the diverter had to submit a properly executed Invoice and Certificate of Inspection and Diversion (083-118) to the state ASC office which approved their application. Generally, under the starch program an agreement was entered into between the manufacturer and the Agricultural Narketing Service. The manufacturer agreed to pay growers and other vendors a price higher than the "going" price by the amount of the diversion payment. The manufacturer was then periodically reimbursed for the difference. This eliminated the necessity, in many cases, of the individual growers keeping books. The livestock diverter had to mutilate -9- potatoes to be diverted to his outlet and provide for inspection. For any state or area to qualify for diversion payments in 1956 it had to develop an acceptable marketing plan which would withhold all cull potatoes, and withhold in addition 10 to 15 per cent or more of the potatoes meeting U.S. grade requirements. According to changes later in the 1956 program, in order to qualify for potato diversion payments it was necessary for states or areas exceeding their acreage or marketing guide, including those areas already approved, to withhold all cull potatoes plus 20 per cent or more of the potatoes meeting U. S. grade standards. If the states had not exceeded their acreage and marketing guide they had to withhold all cull potatoes plus 15 per cent of those meeting U. S. grade requirements. These latter requirements were not in the 1955 requirements. In 1955 the state had to develop a marketing plan to improve the quality of potato shipments in the interest of producers and consumers in order to qualify; but, they were not related to the latter acreage marketing guides in the respective state concerned. The program was designed to divert a large quantity of Specifi- cation A potatoes early in the marketing year. This would cause marketings to' be low enough to support or maintain the prices of the comodity. The action of the program would also clear the spring mar- ket. It would accomplish this by deterring growers from holding stocks until the late spring months. m 23 3133 Problem In the spring of 1956, when for a brief period prices rose to record levels, the diversion program was hailed by some sources as one of the contributing factors to this price rise. In the fall of 1956 it became doubtful that the program alone would be enough to suf- ficiently alter the marketing structure or pattern of potatoes and ~10- hence, improve their price. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the existing structure of the program and suggestions for possible revisions were offered from various sources.9 The National Potato Council suggested that diversion payments should be higher for the entire operation of the program and that raising these payments would be enough to insure successful operation of the program. Dissatisfaction was also expressed with the bond that diverters had to post in order to be eligible for the program.10 In.Decenher of 1956 it was also pointed out that there was much variation between areas in the net returns to growers under the program.11 Some areas failed to acknowledge a feed value to potatoes in the livestock program, so that returns to the grower were not as high as if he were able to take advantage of a starch outlet where the diversion payment would be the same plus 25 cents per hundredweight for starch manufacture. Other questions arose as to the effectiveness of mutilating the potatoes for feed---that is, the cost involved, it was argued, was too lrigh. Other questions also arose as to administrative problems and the general effectiveness of the program as a whole. sees as. __2___Pur 2;. ins and The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine if a normal marketing pattern could be developed for potato producing states; (2) to discover if the diversion program in 1955 and 1956 significantly altered the normal marketing pattern in these states; (3) to ascertain 9Nationa1 Potato Council News (washington, D.C.: National Potato Council, SepEember, I956), Po 5. loIbid. lixoid. -11- the relative magnitude of monthly diversions in these states during the operation of the program.in these two years; and, (h) to discuss and analyze suggested changes in the program. CHAPI‘HE II MHODOLOGY £133 Sflle The production area covered in this study was limited principally to five states: Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Maine and Washington. These were the states that participated in and were largely concerned with the diversion program in the two years. These states also produce an important share of the U. S. crop as will be shown later. It was felt then that if the effect of the program could be measured in these five states, than the general magnitude of the program could be projected for the other states involved. Pennsylvania, an important contributor to the program during four months of 1955, was excluded from the pro- gram because some of the data concerning the state's carlot shipment activities could not be obtained. Pennsylvania did not participate in the program in 1956. Sources _o:_f_ Data Data concerning carlot shipments used in computing the seasonal indexes of marketings were taken almost exclusively from 113311 133233 and Vegetable Shipments by Commodities, States, £12 M published by the Fruit and Vegetable Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. ”Weekly Shipment Sumary of Fruits and Vegetables", a weekly publication published by the Market News Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AJLS., U.S.D.A., was used as a source for the data pertaining to the last six months of the ~12- -13- csrlot shipment series used in building the seasonal index. This was used as a substitute for the previously cited work as the monthly figures were not published and are subject to revision at time of pub- lication. Data for the diversions by states were taken from ..Weekly Report of Irish Potato Diversion Operations-Program XMD 3A", a mimeo published weekly during 1955 and 1956 by the Fruit and Vegetable Division, A.M.S., U.S.D.1. Data on production and merchantible stocks were taken from Statistical Bulletin -I_L_Z__2_, "Potatoes” published by the B.A.E., U.S.DJ. in March of 1953, and from Statistical Bulletin _192, "Potatoes, Sweetpotatoes by States, 1926-1955" published by the Crop Reporting Board, A.H.S., U.S.D.A. Data on production figures in Statistical Bulletin 122 were converted from bushels to hundredweight by the use of the standard conversion factor (.60). Methods 2; Analysis Determining Feasibility of the Carlot Shipments Method Different methods of analysis were applied-to the different sections of the data. It was first necessary to determine if the figures reporting monthly carlot shipments of potatoes could be uti- lized to build a seasonal index of marketings and thus determine if a seasonal marketing pattern did exist in the states entwined. First, reported merchantible stocks figures for the respective years were obtained. Secondly, carlot shipments through Decemba‘ 31 of the year were totalled and converted to hundredweight by using the conversion factor .36.)" This figure was subtracted from total production for 181me merchantible stocks figures were in 1,000 cwt. and each standard shipment contains 36,000 pounds per carlot, then the conver- sion factor used each month was .36 to convert to 1,000 cwt. -11“. the year to give an "Estimated Merchantible Stocks" figure. This figure remained rather stable throughout the years examined in the respective states. This computation can be expressed algebraically as follows: (Total production in year 3 ) - (Carlot shipments through Decem- ber 31 in year 3 x .36) - "Estimated Merchantible Stocks" Note that although this method of calculating merchantible stocks did not give the same figures as "Reported Merchantible Stocks", the ratio of "Estimated" to "Reported" remained fairly constant in the states examined—that is, the amount of potatoes that could be accounted for over the years remained stable. A simple correlation between "Reported" and "Estimated" merchantible stocks also attested to this stability. 80 long as this stability existed it was comluded that a marketing pattern did exist and the carlot shipments could be used (both rail and truck combined) as a basis for measuring this marketing pattern by computing a seasonal index of carlot shipments. Computing and Analyzing the Seasonal Indeo: of Carlot Shipments In computing and analyzing the seasonal index of carlot shipments, two alternative techniques were employed. Seasonal variation is a phenomenon that can by analyzed by various methods.2 In computing a 2The general problem of seasonal variation is discussed in the following literature: a. hederick E. Croxton and Dudley J. Cowden, A lied General Statistics, (New York: Prantice Hall, 1955), Chapters 11;, 1352531 . b. George Simpson and Fritz Kafka, Basic Statistics (New York: Norton ‘Hd 09., 1957), Chapter 17. 0. Warren G. Waite and Harry C. Trelogan, Agicultural Market Prices (New York: Wiley and Sons, 19148), Appendix. d. R. J. Foote and Karl A. Fox, Seasonal Variation: Methods of Measure- ment and Tests 9.1:. Significance, Ag. Handbook EB (Washinaon, Dis-.3 U.S.DAu EOIOEO, 1952,. . e. Elwood E. Lewis, Methods of Statistical Ana sis in Economics and Business (New York: Plough-ton KffE’n 50., I953), Chapt-e'r . -15.. seasonal variation one of the first considerations is whether the magnitudes are likely to vary by absolute amounts or by relative amounts. Thus, in determining seasonal variations in prices, storage costs may be expected to represent a dominant underlying seasonal factor and remain the same absolute amount from year to year. In this case it is probably best to determine the seasonal variation on the basis of actual magnitude. On the other hand, the utilization of storage stocks my be proportional to the passage of time, with perhaps half of the peak stocks exhausted at one time. In tm’s case the relative movement is important rather than the actual magnitude. In computing seasonal averages for this type of variable, percentages or proportional rela- tionships may be preferred. The Quantity Relatives m If it is thought as it was in this case that the seasonal movement is of a relative character, one of the simpler methods, and one of the two used here, is to express each month as a percentage of the average for the year. The percentages for the individual months in a series of years are then averaged to provide the seasonal value for that month. In this case the series of years used for determination of the normal marketing pattern was from 1929 to 1955. This method will remove a considerable amount of trend in the series if present. It is important to note that the computation is based on the crop marketing year rather than the calendar year. In Maine the crop marketing year begins in August. In the rest of the states included, the crop marketing year begins in July. Algebraically the computation can be expressed as follows: Q0 .- Base or average carlot shipments for the year 3. -15.. , Q0 - Carlot shipments in month i in the year :1. Q; ' 95L - Carlot shipments in month i expressed as a per- Qo centage of average carlot shipments in year :1. Q1...Qn - Summation of individual 01 in the series of years to be analyzed - (1929 - 1955) N - Number of years in the series Q1...Qn '- Index of average seasonal variation N 22: 122.119. 22-222 m use e 1422.222 A twelve month moving average is a series of averages which em- braces the first twelve months of a series; next, the second to thir- teenth months; and so on.3 To be more specific, in considering the carlot shipment series the first twelve months in the series were added to give the first item in a twelve-month moving total which was entered between the sixth and seventh month. The total of the carlot shipments for the second to thirteenth months gave the second item in the series and so on. After the twelve-month moving totals were obtained for the series from 1930 to 1951.; a two-month moving total of the twelve-month moving totals was computedu-that is, the summation of the first two items in the twelve-month moving total series gave the first item in a properly centered two-month moving total series entered opposite the seventh month; the second item in the properly centered two-month moving total series entered opposite the eighth month was composed of the second and third items of the twelve-month moving total series and so on. By thm dividing each item in the properly centered twelve-month moving total series by 2b each item in the properly centered twelve-month moving average series was obtained. The next step in computing the seasonal index consists of dividing each original monthly absolute value (carlot shipment) in the series by each corresponding value in the properly 3For a detailed eocplanation see Simpson and Kafka, 32. 32.3., pp. 272-289. -17- centered twelve-month moving average series. This gives an index number of seasonal variation for that month. By summing each respective monthly value in the series, (for example, June, 1929-1956) and dividing by the number of years in the series a final average seasonal index number is obtained for the given month. The logic behind the procedure is as follows: Time series are assumed to be composed of T x C x S x I (Trend 1 Cycle 1: Seasonal x Irregular). The twelve-month moving average is a rough estimate of T x C because it smoothes out seasonal movements and, for the most part, irregular movements, since the latter are largely movements of small amplitude and short duration. If the original abso- lute carlot shipment figures are divided by the twelve-month moving average, an estimate of seasonal and irregular movements are combined: TxCxSxI TxC If a substantial seasonal movement exists, as it appeared to in Ile the series under observation, the two methods described and used (as well as a number of other methods that may be employed) will yield approximately the same result. Because the results of the two indexes were virtually the same the first method was employed in this study. The twelve-month moving average method excludes the last six months in the final computation. Because the first entry is between the sixth and seventh month the last entry is six months short of the final absolute figure of carlot shipments. This had an important significance because carlot shipments figures were only evailable for the first six months of this year--that is, the last six months of this past year's program. The carlot shipment figures would have to have been extended from July to December of 1957 to extend the twelve-month moving average another six months but that would actually -18.. have described events that have not yet happened. The "quantity relatives" method gave approximately the same results and also would give an index of seasonal variations for each month through June or July, the end of the crop marketing year in the states concerned. Because of these advantages the "quantity relatives" method was used in the preparation of the final average index of seasonal variation that is presented. Determining the Monthly Amplitude of Diversions Determining the monthly amplitude of diversion within the states tested for the two years was done by summing the weekly diversion totals for each month concerning differentiation in quality and amount paid for diversions to starch and livestock. In 1956 costs of both phases of the program were lumped together on the weekly report. An approximate figure was obtained for weeks overlapping into a following month by attributing that portion of the respective month's production to the proper month. This was done by totaling the fraction of the week's quantity diverted and attributing it to the latter part of the first month concerned. The remaining portion was ascribed to the first part of the following month. Other methods used in explaining the importance of the program in the states concerned will be (explained as the analysis proceeds (Chapter III). The Test of Significance The statistical test employed to test if there was a significant shift in monthly marketings during the two years of the program was a unification of the basic at testamh hFor a discussion of problems involved in estimates and testing -19.. The statistic employed here bears a close relationship to the basic "t test" expressed algebraically as follows: If X - It is > C it can be said that the sample mean S /W <-C is statistically significant from universe mean I . Sample mean ’10 - Universe mean ' £12 - Egg-)— - standard deviation n - 1 f5- - square root of items in sample C - level of significance attached to analysis (in this case the 5 per cent level) It can be said that if the sample mean of a very large sample is more than plus or minus 1.96 standard errors away from the mean of the universe (the fiveper cent level) then it can be classified as "unusual" or statistically significant. It must be pointed out, however, that in this type of analysis dealing with an index of seasonal variation two types of trend exist; one of which can be eliminated by the two afore mentioned methods, and one that cannot and must be accounted for. The first, trend in magni- tude, can be eliminated. The second, trend or shift in carlot move- ments over a period of years from, for example, January to November, would give a biased estimate, by use of the standard deviation, of the dispersion or deviation from the mean if left unaccounted for. l'ypotheses and a detailed explanation of these tests employed in statistical influence see: a. Wilfred I. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Introduction to Statistical Anaéysis s(New York: McGraw Hill, 1957), Chapters 6-10. . impson and Kafka, 22. cit., pp. 1420-1129. c. Lewis,o .cit., pp. 1873596. (1. Helen .Wa er and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference (New York: Holt, 1953), Chapters 1, 2, and 3. -20- By fitting a trend line to the data by means of the least squares method5 the trend in a particular month's shipments over a period of years can be obtained. By measuring the deviations from this regression line by the use of the estimate of the standard error of estimate6 a much mre accurate measure of dispersion is achieved. If there is no trend in the data the standard deviation from regression or the standard error of estimate will be approximately the same as the standard de- viation. The actual statistical test employed then was: If X". "A > C it can be said that the sample Sy .x/ffi' < -C observation or value differs 1*. ,lo. 5y 0X. significantly from the universe mean. individual value for each month for the two years under the program “expected value” in 1955 and 1956 predicted from trend line equation for each month. If there is no trend in the data this "expected value" for each month will be the same as the average from 1929-1955; hence, /0 was used instead of I . standard deviation from the regression or trend line. If there is no trend in the data this statistic will be the same as the standard deviation. Assumed that Syd is th? same in 1955 and 1956 as it was previously. level of significance attached to the analysis (in this example the 5 per cent level). In this case 2.06 standard errors from the mean includes 95 per cent of the population (2.5 per cent of the upper Limit and 2.5 per cent of the lower limit); that is, with 26 in the universe and n - l 5For a detailed explanation of linear regression, curvi-Jinear regression in time series analysis see: Ce Simpson and Kafka, 22. Cite, Pp. 235-271. b. Lad-s, Q0 Cite, pp. 371122. c. George W. .‘E’Efa'ecorS Statistical Methods (Ames, Iowa: Iowa 9 State College Press, 1953 Chapter 6: d. Croxton and Cowden, 33. 2%., Chapters 12 and 13. 6Snedecor, pp. 931., pp. 117-118. 7See Appendix II for explanation of the method used in computing SYQXQ -21.. degrees of freedom8 if any value is obtained in this case greater than 2.06 or less than -2.06 standard errors from the mean it can be ascertained that 95 per cent of the time values would be obtained closer to the mean than this and, hence, it is termed an "unusual occurence" or statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. f1? - square root of number in the sample to be tested, in this case one; so this term can be eliminated. The use of this statistical test then was to measure whether the government diversion program had affected the seasonal index of carlot shipments, particularly in the months September through December when the highest diversion price was paid. The selection of any particular statistical level of significance is arbitrary. Rather than use one particular level of significance in testing the changes in the marketing pattern in 1955 and 1956 the probability of the changes that did occur, happening by pure chance, was used. Limitation of the Study This method of deriving a seasonal index of carlot shipments has a somewhat limited use. It can only be utilized in those states that have a definite seasonal marketing period. In California, for example, the method could not be used because California has a definite overlap in the marketing of early, intermediate, and late crops. It can also only be used where a stable quantity of rail and truck carlot shipments can be accounted for during a series of years. Pennsylvania, an impor- tant contributor in the program in 1955, was excluded because no record of shipmaxfis is available in the period of the last three years. The effectiveness of such an analysis also is limited by a large standard 8For a discussion of degrees of freedom see Walker and Lev, _020 92-1-20, pp. 90-91, 135, and 11550 -22- deviation due to the dispersion in the data. This dispersion was most accurately measured and, hence, mirrinized as pointed out earlier, by the use of the standard deviation from regression derived from either the linear or curvi-linear trend line equations in cases of data with definite trend. CHAPTER III THE IMPORTABCE OF THE DIVERSION STATES IN NATIONAL HIODUCTION AND THE NCRMAL MARFEI‘IING PATTERN IN CERTAIN DIVERSION STATES Inpartance of Potato Production 3 the mm m In determining the importance of the diversion states in national potato production it is important to note the principal producing areas in the United States. A ten state area, five of which participated in the program both years, and five others, four of which participated either just one year or were disqualified sometime during the year, have produced an average of over 60 per cent of the potatoes for national use from 1929-1957. The former five are Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Oregon, and Washington. The latter five are California, mnnesota, North Dakota, New York, and Pennsylvania. Ary program that seriously considers the support of potato prices through formal or informal plans would have to consider these areas. From 1929-1957 each of these five groups of states averaged approximately 30 per cent of national production. It is important to note that in the last five year period, since the discontinuance of price supports, that this more specialized ten state group has produced an average of over 70 per cent of potatoes for national consumption. Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Oregon, and Washington alone have produced L0 per cent of national potato production since 1950. If marketings are altered considerably in these states, especially very specialized states -23-. -21” as Maine and Idaho, this will have an effect on total potato production and consequently on prices. Over the 28 year period approximately 30 per cent of totalpro- duction has remained in merchantible stocks on January 1 for marketings in the spring months. Size of these stocks is an important factor influencing spring prices along with spring production. Of this total production held in merchantible stocks, approximately 26 per cent has been held by the ten states involved in the program either in a minor or major way. Over the five year period since the discontinuance of price supports, 75 per cent of total merchantible stocks has been held by these ten states. In this same five year period the five states considered in this study held 71 per cent of total merchantible stocks for winter and spring marketings. It appears that this specialized area of ten states produces and holds an important share of potatoes for national consurrption. The six states participating in the program for both years produce a large share of this total and the five considered in this study (excluding California for afore-mentioned reasons) make up a large share of the ~ total. Any type of program designed to indirectly support the potato industry prices would have to alter marketings in this ten state area significantly; or it would have to alter it in the five state area (selected for this study) which did participate even more in the program. It is next necessary to examine this normal marketing pattern for this area to determine whether the marketing pattern was altered significantly in the first two years of the diversion program. - 25 - Construction _of 2.“ Index 9_f_ Marketings in the Five States Studied Table 2a through.Table 2e illustrates the "Estimated Merchantible Stocks" and their relationship to "Reported Msrchantible Stocks" held on January 1 to determine the reliability of building individual indexes of marketings for the five states concerned. The carlot shipments series was the only series of data available for computing an appropriate index of seasonal marketings for potatoes. But before computing a seasonal index for each state, the reliability of using the carlot shipments series for the computation of a seasonal index in each state was tested. This was accomplished by the method outlined in Chapter II. The seasonal index was used to determine the normal marketing pattern and how much the seasonal marketing pattern in 1955 and 1956 departed from the normal marketing pattern. TABLES 2a through 2e.-Relation of estimated merchantible stocks to merchantible stocks on January 1 reported by U.S.D.A. in five diversion states Ratio of Re- Carlot Estimated ported to January 1 Shipments Stocks Estimated Stocks Merchantible through (column 2 (column 1 di- Stocks Production December 31 minus 3) vided by )4.) 1000 cwt. 1000 cwt. lOOO cwt. 1000 cwt. lOOO cwt. (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Table 2a 0010er 1930-h2 ave. 2771 8063 1871 6192 h3.7 19h2 3972 950i 2h16 7088 56.0 19h3 3720 10,332 321h 7118 52.3 19th 3330 10,911; h3h2 6572 50.7 19h5 3762 10,h13 h226 6187 60.8 19h6 3792 11,703 uu23 7280 52.0 19h? 3570 10,h9h h575 5919 60.3 19h8 3756 12,528 602i 650k 57.? -26.. TABLES 2a through 2e-Continued Ratio of Re- Carlot Estimated ported to January 1 Shipments Stocks Estimated Stocks Merchantible through (column 2 (column 1. di- Stocks Production December 31 minus 3) vided by h) 1000 cwt. 1000 cwt. 1.000 cwt. 1000 cwt. lOOO cwt. (1) (2) (3) (h) (5) Table 2a--c ontinued 19149 34866 11,1120 1256 7161; 67.1 1950 1111116 10,909 3985 6921; 611.2 1951 21100 7,311? 3387 3960 60.6 1952 1600 11,530 5106 61211 71.6 1953 1320 11,581 1317 7261: 59.5 1951: 1:300 10,620 3730 6890 62.1. 1955 30501 9,120 3923 5197 58.7 1956 31129 10,197 11208 5989 57.2 Table 2b Idaho 1930-112 ave. 6282 15,170 14781 10,389 60.5 191.2 7251 18,3511 5981 12,110 58.14 19143 10,7014 26,082 7326 18,756 57.1 1911).; 8,301. 23,788 8263 15,525 53.5 19145 12,510 27,675 8531; 19,181 65.5 1916 11,0116 27,768 7561 20,207 69.5 19117 6. 996 17, 160 5714).; 11. 1116 61.3 19h8 12,588 27,360 8909 18.151 68.2 19119 9,936 21,790 7218 111,512 67.8 1950 15,852 30,516 7755 22,761 69.6 1951 9,000 23,055 8671; 1h,381 62.6 1952 11,600 26,929 10,102 16,827 68.9 1953 15,000 30.690 71120 23, 270 611.5 19511 13,000 26.608 7765 18,853 69.0 1955 16,9002 33,0113 7755 25,288 66.8 1956 17,160 33,101; 7627 25,1477 67.11 Table 2c Maine 1930-142 ave. 15,083 26.31121 5561 20,783 72.h 1912 16,278 26,301; 11852 21,852 75.9 1913 21,181; 83,200 10,1120 32,780 611.5 r: ('V (1 (\ -27- TABLES 28. through 2e-Continued Ratio of Re- Carlot Estimated ported to January 1 Shipments Stocks Estimated Stocks Marchantible through (column 2 (column 1 di- Stocks Production December 31 minus 3) vided by 1) 1000 cwt. 1000 cwt. 1000 out. 1000 cwt. lOOO cwt. (l) (2) (3) (1) (5) Table 2c-continued 1911 18, 108 31,331 7, 113 21, 188 71198 1915 19,026 32,729 7,622 25,107 75.8 1916 28,812 17,011 6,118 10,923 70.5 1917 26,601 39,060 6,121 32,936 80.7 1918 25,128 15,015 8,836 36,209 61.1 1919 30,200 12,228 5,098 37,130 81.3 1950 26,300 38,016 2,023 35,993 73.1 1951 17,900 27,000 1,226 22,771 78.6 1952 20,800 32,007 5,111 26,596 78.2 1953 214,700 311-9839 143001 30,838 8001 1951 20,000 29,016 2,109 26,937 71.2 1955 21,0003 35,811 3,262 32,552 73.7 - 1956 28,211 11,718 3,182 38,566 73.2 Table 2d Oregon 1930-12 ave. 1,511 3,815 807 3,038 50.7 1912 1,632 1,386 1,101 3,285 19.7 1913 2,538 7,656 1,812 5,811 13.7 1911 1,860 6,750 2,103 1,317 12.8 1915 2,376 7,188 2,153 5,053 17.0 1916 2,526 7,800 2,262 5,538 15.6 1917 1,662 5,100 1,881 3,516 17.3 1918 2,226 7,068 1,853 5,215 12.7 1919 2,610 6.910 2,083 1,857 51.3 1950 3,700 8,527 1,866 6,661 55.5 1952 2,100 7,090 2,670 1,120 51.3 1953 2,800 7,998 2,115 5,553 50.1 1951 2,835 8,305 2,557 5,718 19.3 1955 2’6001 7,615 1,799 5,816 11.5 1956 3,187 8,530 2,738 5,792 55.0 Table 26 Washington 1930-12 ave. 1,617 1,893 1,037 3,856 11.9 TABLE 23. through 2e—Continued M Ratio of Re- Carlot Estimated ported to January l Shipments Stocks Estimated Stocks Merchantible through (column 2 (column 1 (1'1- Stocks Production December 31 minus 3 ) vided by 11) 1000 0741:. 1000 cwt. 1000 cut. 1000 cwt. 1000 cwt. (1) (2) (3) (1) (5) Table 26-continued 1912 1,101 1,059 1,031 3,028 36.5 1913 1,530 6,318 1,310 5,038 30.1 1911 630 1,512 1,526 2,986 21.1 1915 786 5,106 2,611 2,792 28.2 1916 1,230 6,552 2,732 3,820 32.2 1917 660 6,570 3,502 3,068 21.5 1918 1,320 7,752 3,225 1.527 29.2 1919 1,090 6,131 2,875 3,559 30.6 1950 1,680 7,115 2,613 1,172 37.6 1951 650 -~ 6,501 2.661 3,810 16.9 1952 750 6,268 2,992 3,276 22.9 1953 870 6,182 3,719 2,763 31.5 1951 870 7,926 1,627 3,299 26.1 1955 1,120S 9,633 1,137 5,196 21.6 1956 1,316 10,255 5,619 1,636 28.1 Sources: Column l—Marchantible stocks as reported on January 1 by U. .51., taken from Statistical Bulletin 122 (19112-19119); Statistical Bulletin 190 (1919-1956); and Potatoes, sweet Potatoes (August, 1957), U.S.D.A. publications. Column 2-Producti on, Ibid . Column 3—Carlot Shipments through December 31 times .36 (to con- vert to 1000 cwt.), taken from Carlot Shi ments of Fruits and Vegetables by Comodities, States, and Months (WasFE‘ngtonfDJu United States Department 01" Agicultm'e-ff‘ruit and Vegetable Division of the Agricul- tural Marketing Service). Column 1—Estimated Stocks equals column 2 minus column 3. Column S—Column 1 divided by column 1. 1merchantible stocks series discontinued so the estimate is based on the fact that 1955 merchantible stocks were 76.2 per cent of 1955 total stocks. 21955 merchantible stocks were 88 per cent of total stocks ..29- 31955 merchantible stocks were 92.3 per cent of total stocks. Lt1955 merchantible stocks were 78.7 per cent of total stocks. S1955 merchantible stocks were 82.3 per cent of total stocks. The relationship between these ”Estimated Stocks" and ”Reported Marchantible Stocks' as reported on January 1 of each year by the U.S.D.A. varies from state to state as Tables 2a through 2e attest. However, it appears that this relationship stays somewhat the same in each state indicating that a high degree of correlation between "Reported” and "Estimated" stocks exists in each state. The corre- lation co-efficient used for estimating the degree of relationship between "Reported" and "Estimated" stocks was computed from 1929-1957 data although all this data was not included in Tables 2a through 2e. The co-efficient of correlation varied from .98 in Idaho to .15 in Washington. However, in all states except perhaps Washington the relationship remained fairly stable from year to year. Maine "Reported Stocks" have remained a high percentage of "Esti- mated Stocks' through the period of years tested. This indicates that a high percentage of disappearance has been accounted for by using this method. The co-efficient of correlation as computed in the Maine case was .96. Another important factor is to note the size of the "Reported Morehantible Stocks" on January 1 in Maine. As has been stated before, size of the aggregate stocks is an important factor in determining spring prices along with spring production. Maine merchantible stocks reported on January 1 consistently have been around 50 per cent of Phine's total production. Merchantible stocks have remained high in Maine and continued to be high despite the presence of the diversion program in 1955 and 1956 (Table 2c). -30.. Although not as great a percentage of disappearance in Idaho was accounted for by carlot shipments, the amount of disappearance remained very stable. The co-efficient of correlation as computed in the relation- ship between these two variables was .98. Merchantible stocks, although not as large in absolute terms as in Maine, still remained at around 50 per cent of total production even in 1955 and 1956 (Table 2b). This method as applied to Colorado data illustrated a closely associated relationship. There appears to have been little flucuation in the amount of disappearance actually accounted for by using this method. The co-efficient of correlation was .77 indicating that the relationship between "Estimated" and "Reported” merchantible stocks stayed reasonably constant. It could be pointed out,” however, that in such a year as 1952, when a record average seasonal price was received by farmers that the relationship between the two items became very close. The amount of disappearance ascertained was very high indi- cating that in response to price a high percentage of the total crop was being shipped (Table 2a). .f January 1 merchantible stocks in Oregon have been rather small in absolute terms and have varied considerably as a percent of total production. It appears that merchantible stocks are becoming a smaller part of total production. The co-efficient of correlation as computed to show the relationship between "Reported" and "Estimated" merchantible stocks was .91 showing that a close relationship exists between the two. The amount of disappearance accounted for in this state was quite small but also quite stable (Table 2d). The co-efi‘icient of correlation between the two previously dis- cussed variables in Washington was the lowest of the five states. The -31.. co-efficient of correlation was .15 indicating the relationship may not have been too close. However,'washington's contribution to the program in 1955 was almost nil and quite small in 1956. Therefore, the aggregate effect of establishing such an anlysis on washington.data was quite small. One should recognize this limitation when interpreting this analysis of the washington program Crable 2e). In summarizing the results of this section it appears that in areas with a definite seasonal marketing year this method can be applied to determine the feasibility of building an index of seasonal variation for that area. To producing areas such as California that have a de- finite seasonal overlap such an analysis would be quite difficult. In the five states analyzed it appeared that a definite relationship did exist between stocks as estimated and actually reported. This indicated that a stable monthly movement of potatoes could be accounted for through the use of carlot shipment data, through a period of years and, hence, a seasona1.index of marketings could be established. This seasonal.index in.each of these five states will now be discussed. The Marketing Pattern.in the Five States Participating in the Diversion Program as measured by Carlot Shipments Tables 3a through 3e indicates the average seasonal marketing pattern.in the five diversion states included in this study. The two indexes were computed by two alternative methods discussed in.Chapter II. As can be observed from these tables the average index of seasonal variation number for each month is approximately the same computed by either method. The trend in each month's shipments over the period of years is also taken into account with the inclusion of the apprOpriate least squares equation for each month. The appropriate least squares - 32 - equation was determined by first plotting each.index number for each respective month through the series of years studied. A first degree polynomial was then fitted to this data.in the month analyzed and the standard deviation from.regression or standard error of the estimate was computed. If the trend in the series appeared to be curvi-linear a second degree polynomial was fitted and the standard error was come lputed. If the standard error was smaller the second degree polynomial was used to determine the trend in the monthly data. This procedure was carried out in all of the months of the states in this study. It is important to reiterate here that trend in magnitude is eliminated:in the construction of the indexes. The type of trend that is taken.into account through.the use of the appropriate least squares equation is the shift or trend in shipments from one month to another in the respective state. An example would be the shift in shipments from January, over a period of years, to August. Table 3a indicated the actual seasonal movement or marketing pattern.in Colorado. It can.be noted from this table that over the last two decades seasonal.marketings have reached peak amplitudes in three months—September, October, and January. There appears, however, to have been a shift in marketings from October and January, in some degree, to August. Otherwise no appreciable trend can be detected for the other nine months involved. Therefore, the 28 year average, in most respects, would be adequate for prediction and testing purposes. marketings show a characteristic upward movement in the early and late fall months. They remain steady and move slowly downward with a small percentage marketed in May and June. No appreciable trend in the seasonal pattern of marketings in Idaho for nine of the twelve months was observed. A slight shift in -33.. TABLES 3a through 36.-4The normal marketing pattern in five diversion states computed by two alternative methods A Trend I (from Quantity Relatives 12 Mbnth Neving Pbthod Average thhod quantity 1929-1955 1930-1951 relatives Method) Table 3a Colorado July 26.6 25.1 28.1 - .123x August 116.5 115.6 127.9 + 1.1:: - .18912 September 175.96 175.1 165.5 + .8233: October 171.6 173.6 198.9 - 2.19:: November 1.1103 112.3 117.6 '3 .1991: December 103.8 103.7 98.2 - .113: c .096x2 January 112.7 113.9 161.1 - 1.71:: February 117.8 118.6 121.1 - .510x Mch 123.0 122.2 132.6 - .77]: April 79.0 78.2 73.3 + .160x Pay' 28.3 28.2 18.3 * .799x June 209 205 2.6]. * .27}: Table 3b Idaho July 26.57 27.05 33.85 + .32x - .12312 Align-St 51081!» 51099 (4909 ‘7' .153: September 100.79 102.3 113.97 -.lO6x - .2353:2 October 151.9 151.11 152.9 - .0853: November 137.6 137.8 116.5 # 1.68x ,December 125.7 125.3 91.69 e 2.76x January 150.98 150.07 116.38 + .368X February' 125.02 121.08 118.7 t .5x MCh 1187075 111602 1314026 ‘01.].th I" 92145352 April 117.52 116.3 100.1 -2.23x + .3371:2 May 57.08 58.1 81.1 .. 2.19,: June 7.22 7.58 11.6 - .36x Table 3c Rhine August 3028 2062 0’42 -0396X " 001412 September 37.76 31.87 27 - 3:: «r .1321:2 October 92.11 92.30 110.0 -3.82x November 108.19 111.12 101.75 a .299x December 121.03 122.20 112.6 4v .673x January 158.76 160.7 151.1 + .3363: February 165.15 166.7 151.8 a» .851: Narch 217.29 218.9 168.6 * 3.89x -31.. TABLE 3a through 3e--C ontinued A Trend I (from quantity relatives method) Quantity Relatives 12 Month Moving l’bthod Average Method 1929-1955 1930-1951 A; ...‘_ Table 30-c0ntinued April 177.91 . 176.7 135.5 4' 3.393: m 90.10 89.95 100.6 "' 0811- June 56.13 25.35 32.86 - .511: July 1.26 1.16 .211 - .1981: + .022:2 Table 3d Oregon July 71.87 75059 7063 " 501141 AUgUSt 1.10.3 116057 “ll-1056 "‘ 9.993(2 September 91.39 95.63 106.8 .1 2.981: - .256x October 111.0 135.55 160.23 - 1.51:: November 151.19 150.85 189.114 "' 300,41 December 129.62 131.63 151.9 - 1079}: January 1147096 1117090 18905 "’ 3.33): February 107.71 106.111 120.3 - 1.01x larch 131.52 128.16 170.1 - 3.09x April 86.16 81.81 70.27 . 3.713: 4» .281x2 May 27019 26.01; 19.6 "' 1.163‘ " 015 June . 30614 3059 V 6037 "' .23]! Table 3e Washington. July 162.37 169.311 73 4' 7.091 August 221.16 225.59 15.7 +l1.21x September 208.11; 200.68 111808 " 11.68}: October 165.07 165.38 161.1 + .210: - November 86051 85.67 117.1 - 20,483! December 57.30 59.02 79.9 - 1.83::2 January 77072 77.05 75098 " 1.08x -‘ 00132 February 61.37 59.19 56.112 - 3.191! '1‘ .0111 March 68.11 66.31 55.1 - 1.81:: . .20x2 APE?!" 51.50 52.37 36.17 - 1.1:: e .2722? May 20.77 22.95 10.78 - 2.53:: c .191:2 June 16.76 16.57 13.51 - 1.82:: 4» .051:2 Source: Computed from Carlot Shipments of Fruits and Ve etables by Commoditl' es, States, and Months, U.S.D.A. PfibEcatioE—l929-I955. -35.. marketings over the 28 year period from April and May to a larger share shipped in November and December was noticed. For purposes of measurement and tests of significance, the 28 year average serves as a good measure of central tendency; and the standard deviation as well as the standard deviation from regression serves as an accurate measure of dispersion. The three peak months of seasonal shipments in Idaho over the 28 year period were October, January, and March. The movement of carlot shipments shows an upward movement from July to October. It levels off in October because of storage till the winter months. A gradual upward movement in January is followed by a levelling off in February. An up- ward movement in March is followed by a gradual ending of shipments in my and June which ends the seasonal movement of shipments (Table 3b). mine is another state that markets large quantities of potatoes out of storage during the winter months. The average indexes of seasonal variation indicate that the three peak months of carlot shipments in Thine are in February, March, and April. Trend fitted by least squares method to the 28 year data indicated shifts from marketings in September and October to March and April. This indicates that increasing quantities have been marketed out of storage over the period. The remaining months showed no visible trend over the series of years analyzed; at least, it could be disregarded for purposes of analysis. The general movement indicated is that rather moderate quantities are marketed for the first five months of the year, very heavy quantities are marketed from January through April, and a rapid decline of shipments in May, June, and July fulfills the seasonal marketings (Table 3c). The seasonal movement in Oregon shows the most violent changes of any of the five states analyzed. Thepeak months of marketings over the 28 year period analyzed have been October, November, and January. However, -36- the trend in.shipments over the years indicates that there has been a considerable shift in the mrketings from the latter part of the season out of storage to marketings of an early crop in July,.August, and September. Marketings appear to have held about steady; that is, with no shifts, in only three months. These months are February, May, and June. February is a.fairly:important month in Oregon marketings; but Iday and June have appeared to have accounted for very little of the total crop marketed. The most interesting aspect in.observing the seasonal index in this state is to note the tremendous shift from late marketings to early marketings in the period observed (Table 3d). Table 3e indicates that the four peak months of marketings in washington are July, August, September, and October. The heaviest volume of shipments over the 28 yearperiod was in.the months of August and September. The average:index of seasonal variation in those months was well over 200 for the 28 year period. Trend fitted to the data by least squares indicates a hasty shift of shipments toward the first four months of the marketing year. Unlike the late fall potato producing states, Rhine and Idaho, the index:in ‘Washington seems to suggest that a smaller share of the crop is marketed out of storage in this state than in.a heavy late fall crop producing state such as Idaho or Rhine. Summarizing the results of this section two important features of this study are apparent. The first of these aspects is that the states selected for this study and most heavily involved in.the diversion program have become increasingly important in the production of potatoes for national consumption. In the last five years, since the ending of the price support program, this five state area has produced slightly more than 10 per cent of national potato production. Production in this five state region has shown an upward trend since 1952. -37- In the two major potato producing states considered in this study (Idaho and Rhine) trend lines fitted to the monthly data signi- fied some important conclusions relating to the normal marketing pattern. Whine in particular has exhibited a strong tendency to ship heavily in the months of February, Nbrch, and April. It can also be noticed that there appears to be a definite shift from early fall to late fall and winter shipments out of storage. Carlot shipments seem to be con- centrated heavily in this three month time period. Idaho exhibits a more balanced marketing pattern. At least it appears that no group of two or three months completely monopolizes shipments. It appears that there has been a slight upward trend in the very late months of the marketing year. October, an early fall marketing month and one of the peak shipping months, has held about steady in terms of shipments over the 28 year period. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon exhibit quite different marketing patterns. Colorado has two peak months of marketings in.early fall (September and October) and another in January. Trends fitted to the monthly indexes reveal that a gradual shift to early fall marketings is indicated, with about average shipments in the late winter months. Oregon and'Washington have displayed even more marked shifts in shipments. Both these states have shifted from winter shipments out of storage to fall shipments. ‘washington's peak months of mar- ketings are in the early part of the crop marketing year, with smaller quantities marketed out of stocks. Oregon has ageak month of ship- ments in.Jannary, but over the‘years January shipments have shown a downward trend. CHAPTER IV TEE DIVERSION PROGRAM AND SHIFTS IN THE TIMII} OF THE DIVBSION PROGRAM, 1955 AND 1956 The Diversion Program The diversion program was initiated with one of its purposes being to divert quantities of lower quality potatoes from the market early in the marketing year. graduated payment plan. This was to be accomplished through its It is next necessary to examine the aggregate effect of the program as a whole as well as its magnitude in the five state area during each payment period in 1955 and 1956. Table 1.; illustrates the cumulative program as a whole during 1955 and 1956. TABLE [Iv-Cumulative diversion, 1955 and 1956 22 Starch To Livestock Feed Spec. A CulIs Total Spec. 1" Culls Total (CW0) (CW.) (0%.) (CW0) (CW0) (CWO) 1955 6,339,1129 2,389,11611 8,728,893 815,365 600,392 l,hh5,757 1956 10,892,979 11,330,873 15,223,852 1,682,769 1,683,236 3,366,055 Total 17,232,108 6,720,337 23,952,716 2,528,131, 2,283,628 11,811,812 T otal Diversi ons Spec. A 611115 Total Percent of total U.S. production Total (cwt.) (cwt.) (cwt.) diverted Obligation 1955 7,181,791, 2,989,856 10,171,650 11.5 $3,182,002.33 . 1956 12,575,7118 6,0111,109 18,589,857 7.6 81,,988,805.00 Total 19,760,5u2 9,003,965 28,761,507 $8,170,807.83 Source} "Weekly Report of Irish Potato Diversion Operations, Program XMD 3A", U.SeDer Publication, 1955’ 1956, and 19570 ["I . I ~ 0 Q I i F e. . O - \- - a « . \ n \ a \ \ \ -39.. It can be observed from Table L1 that the diversion program has been a relatively "inexpensive" program for the government to operate. It also can be observed that the starch diversions have been much more important than the livestock diversions during the two years. Further- more, in absolute terms the diversion. program was much larger in 1956 than in 1955. The question now arises pertaining to the magnitude of the program during each payment period. This question will be analyzed as well as noting important changes in timing that took place in the diversion operation in 1956. Table 5 illustrates the relative importance of the diversion program in terms of total production, peak month of diversions, andpeak month of Specification A diversions for the five states concerned. This table was included to illustrate the relative importance of diversions in these five states in 1955 and 1956; but most importantly, it illustrates the shifts in the peak months of diversions from the 1955 programto the 1956 program. Tables 6a through 6e indicates the relative magnitude of diversions during each payment period in the two years for the five states concerned. Similar shifts in timing of diversions can be noted from the table also. Producers in Colorado during the 1955 marketing year diverted approximately 6 per cent of a total production of 9.1 million hundred- weight as contrasted to approximately 9.5 per cent of a total production of 10.2 million hundredweight in 1956.1 In 1955 the peak month of di- versions fell within the October to December 31 payment period. The peak month of diversions during 1956 was in March while the peak month 1 , See Appendix III for monthly diversion figures relating to quantity, specification, and total obligation in Colorado as well as the remainder of the diversion states. “-110- .5? ea. .emaa .mmfi 2.23.: .ooEom Meaghan asseflooflma donned oafioomos one moire ram DEN sehmoamlimcoflmwmeo 53.859 opspom cmwhH mo phenom 3x003: Eon.“ “scenarios 0.: £0.82 méH gag mtfl 0.4208882 gash. WON womohmnsogz gosh. a; 4m. copwsfimmz 3 am fine eases as was She game is «a eoeos NA: 3&4 at...” 3&4 19 «v.3 noun: .Honopoo m.m.n aim hog“ nobopoo H.0m m.m.n snag we too so: tosooom Q2 fimm he goes m.» m 0&3 «a do Hanna toeooo as: 5.2 goose sooeoooz or“ m.m 8238 omen mmfi omen” mmma omen RE 3% mmea momma mmfi use Bumbag macamfiofim some: xmom meg mdoflmhmpa Ho vacancies Hosea 4 Snoooflaooom eoeofieeo 8a some: soon 83883 33m no pcmoemm ...8 Apnoea 203.8»me H.309 a me woodmdba zoom Hence mo psoaom 4 coapeoamaoomm ...8 pumonmm Ho spec: venom I'll ommalmmma «mops?» nofinfibg 05mm a.“ godmother no wed—fie. Ed caeuthsHlom mam: mm.e m~.em me.:m No.5 mm.mm ea.mm ~m.e HH.m~ mo.mm emma mm.m ee.m mw.mH mm.w eo.em No.4m No.5 mo.ma ea.mm mmma enema oe oases $6.0. $.S 3:3 mm.m~ 8&4 mmém the dwm mime omen aa.m wo.m mo.na am.am e~.ea mm.em me.ma Ne.aa «4.0m mmaa oeeeH no oases ma.ma ma.m~ ea.mm mo.ea Na.ma ms.em mm.ma me.aa mm.m~ omen ma.a ms.m om.e ea.am ea.wa ea.ma ma.am me.m~ aa.om mmmfl oemnoaou 8 egg. ”Haze a_.ooom fleece mango a_.ooam fleece tease a .ooem _Hopoe unmohom unconmm unoohwm coated to new op H Hanna emnmfleeio 84 macamaopan am :98: 3. am Hmpseooa eoanHQEoood,msoamnm>Hn am 38:33 op 26.2mm 95553 8&3. 0:... mega acumen nonmflaeoood use amoeba soamaobfle essences.“ 25m 3,. osowmncbfle Ho ogpflcmms 2.330.“ 0:91.00 :wsohfi we age -hz- amen eee .emaa .32 .4565 .ooetom monofiaa Headset? donned oaoeoomoe one 9E. ....am ea sonmohmnndofimnoeo doflmno>e9 opopom amen”... Ho 9.8909 5383.. Son.“ empress ”cahoom 0.9.0 .239” 5.09 00.8 $3.8 $1.3 3.09 3.3 :mém 0mm." , 2.3 5.2 mafia 8. ohm moé mmfi nopwcflmmz 00 0.33. +3.8 8.8 3.3 mtmw 5.3 «N13 H12 Rd. 13.3 33 $6 mm; Rama $.Nm 5.0m d.mm mm; 3.3 2.? mmma commie m0 0.993. undo 4 .ooem Hopes ago 4 $on H33. 3950 4 $on 9.399. 950.89 95989 300909 Broom Ho com on a 9394 AM 90.32 op Hm 935039 Hm nonsooo9 op voemflaeoog 33935.9 ooenfiesoog nsoamBhB eonmflneusog 332059 E 8::350100 smooths. e0 $994.9. {4 -143- of Specification A diversions was in the last time period. (Table 5). During the operation of the 1955 program 50 per cent of total diversion in Colorado had been accomplished before January 1. Only 25 per cent had been diverted as of that date in 1956. During the second payment period in 1955, 1:3 per cent was diverted with only six per cent diverted during the 30 cent payment period from April 1 to May 31. Marty-six per ca1t of total diversions was accomplished during the ho cent payment period, and 38 per cent was accomplished during the final 30 cent payment period in 1956 (Table 6a). It would appear that in 1956 the aggregative effect of the program was to supplement income rather than to indirectly raise price. This is borne out in the fact that 13 per cent more potatoes were diverted in the last payment period in 1956 than 1955 and that nearly 23 per cent of total Specification A diversion was accomplished in the 30'cent per hundredweight payment period. However, it is not argued at this point that the diversion program altered the price structure in 1955. It appeared that in 1956 a greater percentage of Colorado potatoes was diverted to the program even with the lower prices in the final time period. Colorado has only one starch plant, located in the heart of the San Luis valley production area. Still, with only one starch plant, starch diversion outranked livestock diversions in Colorado during the operation of the 1956 program. The Colorado diversion program cost approximately $115,000 in 1955 and approximately $200,000 in 1956. (See Appendix III). Maine was by far the most important contributor to the diversion program in both 1955 and 1956. Nearly 20 per cent of a totalproduction of 35.8 million hundredwedght was diverted either to starch or livestock in 1955. Tram per cent of a total production of 1.1.7 million hundred- weight was diverted to these two sources in 1956. The peak month for both ..uu- total diversions and specification A diversions in 1955 occurred during October while in 1956 the peak month was March (Table 5). Relatively speaking, somewhat the same effect observed in Colorado was observed in Maine. Nearly 53 per cent of total. diversions was accomplished before December 31 during the operation of the 1955 program. In 1956 only 32 per cent was diverted prior to that date. Diversions during the December 31 to March 31 time period during the operation of the 1955 and 1956 programs were both about equal; but during the final time period of the operation of the 1955 program only 12.8 per cent was diverted as contrasted to nearly 35 per cent during the operation of the 1956 program (Table 6c). Total diversions in Maine cost roughly 5 million dollars which was over half the total cost of the program for the two years. (See Appendix III). There are 22 starch plants in Maine; more than in Idaho, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington combined, which enables growers in the state to take advantage of the starchprogram more readily than in the other di- version states, except perhaps Idaho. Five percent of the total potato crop of 33 trillion hundredweight in Idaho was diverted either to starch or livestock feed channels during 1955-1956. This figure rose to seven per cent of a total crop of 33.1 million hundredwaight in 1956-1957. Peak month of diversions during the operation of the 1955 program was in January. The peak month in 1956 shifted from January to May. This also held true for Specification A diversions (Table 5). Thirty per cent of total diversions was accomplished before January 1, 1956, in 1955, while only 18 per cent of total diversions had been accom- -15.. plished during this same time period in 1956. Fifty-six per cent of total diversions had been accomplished in the December 31 to March 31 time period in 1955 while 37 per cent had been accomplished as of this same time period in 1956. Only 13 per cent of total diversions was accomplished from April 1 to the end of the program during the operation of the 1955 prOgram while 1414.5 per cent of total diversions was accomplished during this same time period during the operation of the 1956 program (Table 6b). There are 13 starch plants located in Idaho; consequently, as in Maine, the diversions to starch were much more impprtant than to live- stock feed. The diversion program's total payments in Idaho for the operation of the 1955 Program were $271,111.33. Total payments in 1956 amounted to $311,6h2. (See Appendix III). Eight per cent of a total p roduction of 7.6 million hundredweight in Oregon was diverted in 1955 and 18 per cent of a total production of 8.5 million hundredweight was diverted in 1956. As there are no starch plants within the state, total diversion activities in the state consisted of those directed to livestock channels. Some inter-state starch diver- sions might be possible but inter-state regulations as well as cost probably prohibit them. The same shifts in the timing of diversion ac- tivities existed in Oregon as in the other states. The peak month for both total diversions and Specification A diversions during the operation of the 1955 program occurred during January while the peak month during the operation of the 1956 program was April (Table 5). Thirty-one per cent of total diversions was accomplished in the October to January diversion period in 1955 and 18 per cent in 1956. Fifty-three per cent or total diversions was accomplished in the January to April period in 1955 and hl per cent'in 1956. Only 16 per cent of total diversions was -h6- accomplished during the final diversion period during 1955 whereas hl per cent of total diversions was accomplished during this same period in 1956 (Table 6d). Total cost of the program was $170,523 in 1955 and 3277,8145 in 1956. Participation in the program by Washington producers increased from less than one per cent of a total production of 9.6 million hundredweight in 1955 to approximately sevenper cent of a total production of 10.3 million hundredweight in 1956. Washington was the only state that no real discernible shift in peak diversions occurred. In both years peak diversion occurred relatively early in the diversion period (Table 5). Four per cent of total diversions was accomplished during the first diversion period in 1955 and 96 per cent during the January to April payment period. However, diversions in 1955 totalled only h2,893 hundredweight. Thirty-eight per cent of total diversion was accomplished during the first payment period of 1956, 145 per cent in the second, and 17 per cent in the third (Table 6e). Total payments in Washington totalled $6,730 during 1955 and rose to $179,272 in 1956. (See Appendix III). There is one starch plant in Washington. However, starch activities were quite important in the Washington operation. Pennsylvania, Utah and Calif orrda participated in the program during part of the 1955 marketing year in addition to the five states previously discussed. However, Pennsylvania was disqualified for failure to comply with diversion regulations and did not participate in 1956. Minnesota, New York, and North Dakota also participated for a short time in 1956. North Dakota was the most important of these other states in the diversion program during 1956. However, North Dakota participated in the program only during December and January. (See Appendix III). -m- Diversions by all states were 14.5 per cent of total production in 1955 and 7.6 per cent in 1956 (Table 1;). Possible Reasons for the Shifts in Timing of the Diversions There are a number of possible reasons for the shifts in timing of diversion activities in the five states observed. It could be hy- pothesized that the relatively small proportion of diversions in the last period of the operation of the diversion program in 1956 came as a result of, instead of a cause of, the 1956 spring price rise. That is to say as prices rose in the spring of 1956, due to factors such as the failure of the spring crop, fewer growers were willing to take advantage of the lower price for Specification A potatoes under the diversion program. This would account for the relatively small proportion of potatoes being diverted during the final period of the program. A different set of expectations could have been held by growers the following fall. They knew the plan was in existence or would probably be in existence during the 1956 crop marketing year whereas they did not in 1955. Production plans could have been adjusted upward because of the existence of the program and the previous high spring prices. The program would insure that some return could be gained on Specification A potatoes even if prices were low. This fact could have affected expectations accordingly. This means that the program may have had the effect of narrowing the range of prices a grower could expect. The program had the effect of cushioning the very low return the grower could receive in the absence of the program. This assumption is supported by the fact that in the fall of 1956 some of the states' shipments were smaller than expected in months when the program should have had no effect. This occurred despite the ..ua- presence of increased production. However, high spring prices did not materialize in 1957 due to a large supply. This caused growers to take advantage of the program as a means to achieve some returns on Specification A potatoes during the final period of operation of the program. The hope of having spring prices rise as they had the previous spring might also have been present. CHAPTER v THE SEASONAL MARKETIN} PATTEIN IN THE FIVE STATES DURII‘I} THE OPERATION OF THE DIVERSION ROGRAM ‘When the importance of potato production in the five state area included in this study was discussed, (Chapter III) it was noted that any government program.designed to indirectly aid or support potato prices would have to alter marketings significantly in this important producing area. Some peculiar shifts in.the 1956 diversion program were noted (Chapter IV) and it was hypothesized that perhaps these shifts were caused by the fact that prices were still relatively low in the last time period of the diversion program. Thus, producers continued to divert potatoes, partially in the hope to raise price and partially to gain some return on lower grade potatoes (No. 2‘s). It is necessary at this point to examine the seasonal marketing pattern.in this five state area and determine if it was affected by'the operation of the government diversion programs during 1955 and 1956. If the program was effective the seasonal:index of shipments should have been significantly smaller than the "expected" monthly index of shipments. This is because the carlot shipments figures used in the construction.of the average index of seasonal variation consist only of those potatoes marketed for fresh consumption. Specification A potatoes diverted (No. 2 in.quality or better), if diverted in.a sufficient enough.quantity, should have significantly lowered these shipments to markets for human consumption. This reasoning holds true for both starch and livestock -50... diversions. Livestock diversions would not appear on the carlot ship- ments figures as they would most likely be consumed on the farm or nearby farms. Starch diversions were handled by private trucldng or other private transportation and they also would not appear on any rail or interstate truck shipment. Table 7 indicates some of. the relevant shipping point prices during the two years of the program. These prices are for washed-four-ounce- minimum potatoes and would have to be discounted if price to the grower was to be computed. The two extremes in prices are noticeable in the spring of 1956 and 1957. Tables 8a through Be show the actual marketing pattern in the principal diversion states in 1955 and 1956 and the "expected" marketing pattern calculated from the linear or curvi-linear trend equation. The probability that skipments could have varied from the usual marketing pattern by these amounts due to chance is included also. If there was a very low probability that these shipments could have occurred by chance, and very high diversions during the sane month, it was then concluded that the diversion program altered or lowered those shipments signifi- cantly during that month. The program did not alter the seasonal marketing pattern signifi- cantly in any month in either 1955 or 1956 in Colorado. Shipments in October, November, and December of 1955 were significantly larger. This indicated a larger than usual volume of carlot shipments during these months despite the operation of the program designed to appreciably lower than. The actual monthly values (X*) of shipments during the 1956 mar- keting season cane very close to approximating the expected values (‘9 and, hence, it was obvious that they were not significantly altered during -51- qo¢oQomoD «emerge mcoduo mam-w moopmpom opmnoaoo $3me enmemo 0 .NH .IlhhmeH .amz .m Eefiaflz Bahama .unwfiosmcmngn use mace and movie bananas omega fishes home you magma Ho emcee Exams mo unwound: one no owmacbm 0.358 m and heaven annexes mc.H ms.H as.H o~.a mw.a mm.a om.a mm.a om.H 00.: mw.~ mm.m mm.a mm.H mm.H mm.H OH.H 004 OH.H oN.H mN.H om.H mm.a mm.H mN.H oa.a mm.H mm.H ow.m mm.m oo.m mm.w omom oe.m oo.m mm.a mN.H oo.H 0H.H me. on.m QH.m oo.m mm.~ on.~ m~.N me.a oo.~ oo.~ om.m me.H oe.a oe.H ee.~ ea.“ oe.m oe.~ on.~ oe.a oo.~ om.m ee.m oo.m oc.~ om.~ oo.~ on.H mo.a 05.8 an: Hmha< cog banshee .m Esme $85009 emnscaeoz nonopoo Measmpeow cosmos aqua m.H .oz m.H .oz m.m .oz n.Hwoh n.N .02-: m.H .oz mad mmmfl m as saws an a minus m.H .02 m.H .oz nemEH ocmhoaoo *AuoSmmz mezzo : no asEHCfiE_geeH NV arcane opwpom ecfloe.wcaamflnu bananas wetness msomu.~ memes -52... qoLli"".1~l:!1 (sf if-v lit-mini: F:u:t Serwte, Department of Agriculture and \. ..w ...lllll‘ Inns-Ii. Aill'li‘llllllhll Subthopn-r FElplzr. and Domestic Consumption Program: PART SID-~l’rr'sit Iii-Isl! l‘o'rAroES Slflll‘filir— ... (~. r n:- " ‘f Ilr‘lSH POI‘ATHES l..l\'F.S'.'0i‘K FEET) DI‘. til-1.310?“ PROGRAM XMD 33o Spry “Nil lf'lfl (3- . “l‘fi‘ -' “"YI'J‘YIY. lull! 1. {l '. l::'l.i.‘~?'.il. ' 5191?). A"P‘-1. 5123.133 I‘~-71'.id (i’ phi-grunt. 53311.3 l‘ -'.’.c (.1 l'~i~l..l‘lil.. “MAJ i'ir'i 1~..1t';h: :Iy f-r l‘.i'~'l‘.‘."!‘l 919136 Ag‘pll. .it‘. m ;.1.ti uppr Will for par- '1"‘;l‘.il'l-li 3.1) 1‘17 Pct! »rI-.:nncw n. nd. '5 ‘14-; PM: «I :f <‘l;-.»-I~I in. .‘~‘.:l - -..' l)v-: ‘ 1’. it. I'I'K‘l'il‘l {xiii .4!) Dan is; 25'»- .t?! w...“ 5:31-11 1:..pt-t-tiwu ..: «I (‘l‘t‘IlII".:'t‘. of (liver- 91011. 14') F'.1llll‘.ll"'{ll'l‘lll v“. ‘.. v . ““5 l" :inl I‘r-.‘.- r. is. Bl"l 144: limpet-flan . ' tux-nines. 619 '. v'; [tr-..‘nrtls‘ “Hal .. i:.'s. 52014". Svi— 5111147 J~‘...! rmvnn v ‘ ir {'1.~"lf‘llmf‘llt. 51191413 (“in its n ‘lt‘l.i‘lll, 5191483 Aizwv. .nnm' -t-..l Lt-rniinntion. f in .‘--‘ Avruorurit 1‘1 :.mtr~.5191~19 issued un- dn‘. sec. .12. ~11: Stat ":74. as amended; 7 U. S. C. 61.x. .5 519130 G c n e r a .' statement. In ordt-r to t‘llCillllziilt‘ the domestic con- sumption of lush IIISh potatoes pro- duced in the C(Illllllt‘hlal United States by (lll't'l'tlllg them from normal chan- nels of trade and commerce. the Secre- tary of Agriculture. pursuant. to the au- thority conferred by section 32 of Public Law 3‘20, 74th Congress, as amended, offers to make payment for the diversion of 1956-crop potatoes for use as livestock feed, subject to the terms and conditions hci'clnufier sct forth. Information re- lating to this prouram and forms pre- scribrd for use hereunder may be ob- tained from the followun: Finn and Vegetable Dl‘v‘l‘ltfll. Agricultural Mlirketlng Service. L'Iilled States Department of Agriculture. Washington i5. I) C‘ Offices of the State Agrlculturul Stabiliza- tlon and Conservation Committees In the respective Status. County Agricultural Stablllzatlon and Conservation Committees In the respective counties. §51913l Administration. The pro- gram prov1ded for in this part will be administered undrr the general direction ”II-Inn C~ C P ankcitn-z >r'l‘l’lic‘ and 11‘: this {will will be ("Al‘l’ltd oil'. l‘y.’ l‘im (l‘nniinntifly Stabi— 11.';i~’1o.; m‘r-I‘vict lllluillflllln‘A.ZIECl11lilI‘iil Sinfulixzitir‘u‘i a lid (‘oiwri’uiiufiuii Siam ('i)!l‘.lll)fl'-t“s and Aciiciiiitnril Sinful/u- ton and Ct“l‘l>i“2\'iillllll (Vin-my (Immuni- tccs. lll‘l'f‘lllilllt‘l‘ referred to as Show and County (‘oinnntfco-s. mm Stole. (Joni- Inlllt‘t‘ vill it'lllllHl/P one or more t‘IIl- ployi'm of the n'fnlt- Ci‘IIllIIll7r'i‘ to not or. lE‘l”‘i‘m~iiniiir-s of the l-‘niitd Shirt-s Dc- partnnnt of Acricuiturc, hwrumficr rev It‘llt‘d to .‘l\ lit-411A. to 3mm vi- {10113ffll‘lilil'lli’llllillllll Cillllllllllt‘i‘s or thvir authorized repre- St'lllfllll’f‘s do not have nut}. any to modifv or waive any of 11*.» pm: :xltiIlS of this subpart or any umcndnn-nls or sup- plements to tnis s'iopart. ,8 Area. This mm: am will he Pfit’t‘lllv in such Suites 01' fll't‘iis as may be designated from time to time by the Director, Fun! and Vegetable Division. Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. De- partment of Agriculture. Information with respect to the areas designated may be obtained from the offices listed in § 519.130. § 519.133 Period of prouram. This program vsill be effective from the date of this announcement and continue until further notice. but in any event not later than June 30,1957. u; Ipllffal — 5* .1’0- illll Ctillllly {171'le § 519 134 Rate of payment. The rate of paynwnt per 100 pounds of potatoes meeting the requirements of Specifica- tion A as defined in § 519.140 and which are leE‘l‘lt‘d as prescribed in §519.139 will be, 50 cents for potatoes diverted during the months of October, Novem— ber, and December 1956, 40 cents during the months of January, February, and March 1957; and 30 cents during the months of April, May, and June 1957. No payment wil‘ be made for any frac- tional part. of 10') sounds and such quan- tities shall be dis; arded. § 519.135 E‘lz‘qz‘inty for payment. Pay- ments will be made under this program to any individual, partnership, associa- tion, or corporf‘lon located in the con- tinental United States, ta) who executes and tiles an application for participation 0n the pI‘t.‘SCI‘1b(‘d forms. lb) whose ap— plication is approved. (Cl who diverts fresh Irish potatoes directly or through ‘I (y In -73- --"-'~: 1' '1'"! rs:- .‘. 3t~”5.‘L_ ’ L} i) -;V. 161E. all 1“ 1‘14»? le- 5‘. ml 'Ll . r, ruin {my oii wi' pcrwn o: l‘i'lFi I ll. w r. ‘5 ciaun (1‘ l)"u'~.ftl-‘il n. ,v on: 1‘2; my. . writ) ()llll‘I‘A'IM‘ t‘wn‘iiilzvs um; .i " e lt'l‘ms Lind Cigit‘.t‘ii'ii-.;1;;~_T of this zip." §5lll lilG A;;}u’lC(l’.-Hz "“ ‘l ’. z» "57 for })r:."fn‘z,:af;( n. l‘c "n I i ) l‘mfll'lé‘ait‘111llillxllli'flJH;IT‘nl m .l, n winittn e‘xpplimlniz on 1mm tx-nf—l I “Application for l‘zil‘lii'l}l:i?"ill In ll“ 11 ll‘l‘ll Potato Livestock I‘m-l I).I.'cI‘I-..~Ii I’i'oiri'uIIi—-,XMI) 3a." Ito-h emu-w int, ”111leSllllnlll'dDPllflI'lllillJ't’lli'ill-‘f .is p: - l'lfi"(l in 9'519137. Applu‘ timris and hands shoilld bc subrn: m: to .lxc (_‘. :Inv ABC Ullit‘c for the county w 'l;.n \W .' the DOIqut-s uri- l0 be (li'J‘l'H'il Alli»- (ulions Will be foz'wzmivd to in. .r'wlc AH? Office and Will he consn'o-trd u‘ ”no ()lrli'l‘l‘t‘l't‘lved11’11?1t?1‘(‘$1u=t11\'v':l.."r'.1‘~tif. i in accordance with the 1|‘v'..lliil)lli'._\' of funds. Applicants will bo- notzl'wl of inc up; l'lell or non-approval of ll‘wil' appu- t‘nlz-nn Approved ill)llll(‘.'.l,l'|.".; ni:-.v 1+- rnodilicd or amended With the cons». of. of the applicant and the duly anllrwrizcd representative of the State Committee Prorzdcd, That such m-jvi‘ificution or amendment shall not. be in conflict with the piovimons of this supp-art 01‘ any amciirlmcnt or supplements her-ctr) An approved applicant is lit‘l‘t‘llllillt‘l‘ re- ferred to as “the diverter. §519.137 Performance bond. Each applicant shall submit. with his first ap- plicatlon for participation it perform- ance bond as further assurance that the paratocs diverted pursuant to this p10- gram will be used cxclus1vcly for live- stock feed. The bond shall be executed on Form CSS-IIQ by the principal and two Individual surclies. all of whom shall agree to indemnify the USDA for any losses, claims, or payments made by USDA with respect to any quantity of such potatoes not. used for livestock feed. ' The USDA may disapprove any bond 1! for any reason any surety does not in the oplnlon of USDA afford USDA full protection and security. 9519.138 Period of diversion. The potatoes in connection with which pay. ments are to be made must be diverted (a) after the date of approval of the diverter's application, lb» within thq time period SlJCCAllt‘d in the approved application, and (c) In any event on 0. before June 30,1957. ”19.139 Definition of diversion. Di- version of potatoes for use as livestock feed as used herein means the prepara- tion of potatoes for feeding to livestock by cutting, chopping, slicing, gouvimz, crushing, cooking, or ensrlins: so as to render them unsuitable to enter into normal channels of trade and commerce as potatoes. :5 519 140 Diversion specifications. P0- tatoes in connection with which pav- mehts will be made must, meet the re- quireirieiits of "Specification A" which is hereby defined as meaningr potatoes equal to or better than the quality re- qurremetits of U. S. No. 2 grade, and which have either a minimum diameter of 2 inches or a minimum weiight of 4 ounces, wrth no tolerance being allowed for defects or undersrae. Lone," varieties of potatoes which" by clippinr: ends or second arowth could be made to meet the quality requirements of U. S. No. 2 grade need not be so clipped to be classed Spec- ification A but. the portions which cus- tomarily would be clipped oi‘f shall not be considered as meetinar the requirements of Specification A and this weiaht shall be deducted in determining the. weight of those potators in the lot which do meet thei‘eiizrii curt-iii» of Specification A. § 519.141 Inspection and certificate of diverSion. Prior to diversron the pota- toes shall be inspected by an inspector. authorized or licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect and certify the class, quality, and condition of fresh Irish potatoes. The diverter shall be responsible for TPqtlt‘SllllH and arranging for inspection suflicrently in advance of the diversion so that the inspector can be present to determine the propor- tion of potatoes in each lot which meet the quality requirements of Specification A. The inspector shall also verify the quantity of potatoes being diverted and that such potatoes have been diverted as defined in §519.139. The diverter shall furnish such scale tickets, weighing fa- cilities. or volume measurements as de- termined by the inspector to be necessary for ascertaining the ngt weight of the potatoes being diverted. The cost of inspecting, verifying the quantity. certi- fying that diversion has been perto: lllt'~l. and issurng certificates thereof shall be borne by the diverter. Certificates shall be prepared on Form CBS—118 “Invoice and Certificates 0: Inspection and Di- Version." {- 519.142 Claim for payment. In order to obtain payment the diverter must submit a properly executed “Invoice and Certificates of Inspection and Diver- sion,” Form CSS—118, to the State ASC Office which approved his application. All such claims shall be filed not later than Ali'JllSl. 31. 1957. §539. /~ 1‘ Tonii‘r’I-rn. .;"1 7‘? c'ar'i T‘TOL‘L I- If lez'rflA (J. atl'rlllrii;:~ l.) a! any our. :3 of p'itiit-iegz izvertwi 'l;;t'l‘ r this pr ‘Hl’l was not used exclirru‘reiv for live: ' ck feed purposes. Wlli‘llit r suit failure was caused directly by the d'.‘ verter or by any other person or persons, the diverter shall in t be emitted. to dive.“- sion payments in connection with such p4vtatt'ies and shall it? liable to ISUA for any other darna-Ics incurred as a 1'!" tilt of such failure to use the potatoes ex- clusively for livestock feed purposes. USDA may deny any diverter the l'li'fit to participate in this proaram or the riirlit to receive payments in connection with any diversion previously made- un- der this procram. or both. if US? deter- mines that: tab The diverter his failed to use or caused to be used any quantity of potatoes diverted under this procram exclusively for livestock feed purposes, whether such failure was caused directly by the diverter or by any other person or persons. (b) the diverter has not. acted in good faith in connection with any transaction under this program. or (cl the diverter has failed to discharge fully any obligation assumed ivy him under this prorrrrim. Persons making any mis- representation of facts in connection with this program for the purpose of defrauding the USDA will be subiect to the applicable civrl and criminal provi- sions of the United State."- Code. § 519.144 Inspecticn of pre-rriz'scs. The diverter shall permit auti-cz'izmi repre- sentatives of USDA at. any reasonable time to have access to his pi’cm‘isis to inspect and examine such potatoes as are being diverted or stored for diver- sron, and to inspect and examine the diverter’s facilities for diverting pota- toes, in order to determine to what ex- tent there is or has been compliance with the provisions of this program. §519.145 Records and accounts. "if the diverter sells or otherwise disposes of potatoes diverted pursuant. no this pro- gram to any other person or persons for use as livestock feed, the diverter shall keep accurate records and accounts showing the details relative to the diver- sion and disposition of such potatoes. The diverter shall permit authorized rep- resentatives of USDA at any reasonable time to inspect. examine. and make copies of such records and accounts in order to determine to what extent there is or has been compliance with the pro— visions of this program. Such records and accounts shall be retained by the diverter for two years after date of last payment to him under the program. §519146 Set-off. If the diverter is indebted to USDA or to any other arzcncy -7h- of 11.1: {Lin i‘ .~‘:: firs. set ‘° . rote. {fifth-list. zttifv' .‘rt‘ -':.:l 152'- i.‘ I‘" .o'r lA'I'imii git"? I'm {3.21‘.’ (iTl .s" . " ll"? Ye _ tile "Litr'iiri‘ of li-P I'i:i.t li'i C-"fl-thf“. UPI €18 DPSS (if 1?;0 1:,rji-ii[r=i_hig_n;_.\ 11’.\;-,|....l_ (illit'l' bv litil‘l‘illiiziif’iill‘y't‘ appeal -';1 by legal iit‘liiii'i §510147 Ji'ijif prrt-wnriit (,r i:~”:".".- trzr'rit. 'i‘iie diverter may ii'it'm: :-. tin-Ht payee on the claim for _riavrnent. triay assiisii, in accordance with ti e - -' 1: of the Assignment of (‘3...ms Act o.“ 1:;0, Public Law till, Tti'h (Firm-its, as amended till U S. F‘. 1‘- f? 42 U. S. C '25), the pinch-r12 '1‘ any (warm, in) a Li‘ 1.1:, trust corniiarw. i- mini it’lii'lil‘rL'f ri.'.,-i'cy, or other rrco: r... mi ti:;.rn-: r121: :i;r".;t.‘. ju'r‘i: I‘t'i‘i in" 7. 'l’i. "it i; ii‘ir-jlllilltfi‘ii simir be re ":i>:r‘...'. iri rug. : it and when the av tee v a. A». in d 1' tires? fi._1".‘.;v'fl tlir-l‘i‘ni hit-s Iritrr; tnlzr-o' of the 11>- mcnt wit {he :itiflmq‘ of Uh‘lll wfiri approved tit I;:p.‘.:rzr’.;o:‘. lWW‘lllF‘" xvi}: :i ’lvit' copv of the ir‘rsti’i! nic‘til. (ll assixlz in til, :11 iit'iitiitiaiit't' It iii the it strut-trons on Form L‘s->8 tit; \‘i e of Assrr'iin‘ient,” which turn it? ist be in urviii; notice of lifiiillilll'i'lt‘lll. to 0- _‘~. The "Instrument of As.-ii'I.ment" be executed on Form (ft-H .447 0': '- it assiiirrcc array urtc his. o'tii in. In of 35.1.1... .- ment. 'ti.e t‘stH forms may be cotai. . .3'. from the State ASC‘ (‘If’fici' or the Vva. liiiztoii or :s.- sluwit iii §51f3 12,0. .5 5131148 (‘lftiiurils not to bericfit. No mf‘lnbi-i' of or deic;..ate to (..‘onnwsg m. Rt‘Slr‘f‘llt (_‘olnmissir-rien - ,;.;' ... phi-.1119“ to 3 LV .‘ilfll‘t' ltl' I‘.li'l (if 1: 3 fig. - Tc SUl'iIlL’ {l‘Ulll li'l‘a lill‘i'fndli ii: ., ,u,‘ u “if fits. that may ar'w ti‘-‘rei‘rorn. but tins Oi‘o 'bmli shrill :. it be iiinrn‘wn 'H ex- tend to such a contract .f made will a corpori’ition for its cc: 4 '.ll bcne it or to any such person aciiiii. :ii i.is Capacity as a farmer. .5519149 Aiiif'rrcimcnt and tcrrviinn tion. This subpart may be amended or terminated at any time but the aim-no ment or termination shall not be rile-city.» earlier than the firitt- of tiliniz with the Federal Register Division. No amend. ment or termination shall be applicabb to any potatoes diverted before the effec- tive time of such amendment or termi- nation. Nore' The record-keeping and reporting requirements con tained herein have been ap- proved bv, and subsequent requirements will be subject to the approval of. the Bureau 01 the Budget in accordance with the Men] Reports Act of 1942. Dated: October 4. 1956. [SEAL] S. R. SMITH. Authorized Representative of the Secretary of Aorzciilt‘ure. STATE Twas-I17 u. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (925.56) COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION FRESH IRISH POTATOES LIVESTOCK FEED DIVERSION PROGRAM xuo 3a NOTE: Submit this form In an Original and 2 copies to ASC County Office. Ilwelhmeby apply for payment to be made in accordance with the terms and condi- timm ofthe above named program and for approval of the diversion for use as live- hundredweight of fresh Irish potatoes Mockfemlof not to exceed meedng Hm requirements of Specification A. l(we)agnn3that the entire quantity of such potatoes will be used for livestock l (we) understand tlat it is my (our) responsibility to assure myself feed only. (mnselwm) that such potatoes are actually used for feed purposes only and that Um saheor disposition of the potatoes by me (us) to any other person or persons WHl notin any way relieve me (usl of responsibility in the event the potatoes are used fln'other than feed purposes. 7‘ 7 vs IENAT'tJPE») 7 "_' 7" iIFfiiel h ITEiEPNBKE N0.l -IbATE or APVLIVATIDNl “LIA L TU amid bounty, and Shall be completed not lJlrr than (MJNTH) - 7S .. (AUTHORIZED R:~.~"I~.INTa"~'I .~ H'- ‘I l.\ “M NT U» ntwr It ('4 l'IHM (l)l—‘. l 'l g i. , ' . ' ““M‘ " t'gAT “N u‘VVIL‘ ‘9-25—56) PEPFC‘RMANCE BOND FRESHIRBH PCTATT LWESTOCK FFEDENVERYQN PRCGQAM XVDBC -\ D All. UI‘N Il‘T' THI'KF. I'h‘l‘ h-I-NT- in the State of I Of ________ as principal, and ___fl_ __ _‘_____Lk~*;, , of ##RF_ Vigfi4__+ _h_ in the State of __u_s,,,,r 7,._ ,__"_.~e a*_ ,, and g_ us__, ‘ __W 4,_s__ of- . . -_ts- _."s_.__n_._ ._.m“ ____u__ , in the State of __‘.i-- ____”__-____ _ __,.__ ,_ m ited States Department of Agriculture Ihereinafterreferredto as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the Un as PSDAL in a penal sum computed by multiplying the total quantitycfl rotatoes covered by approved applications as referred to below by the applicable rate of diversion payment provided under the program, lawful money of to be paid to the USDA, to which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. the United States, and may from time to time make additional applica- heirs, executors, 'HEREAS. the above named principal has made application, for payments for the diversion of fresh Irish potatoes into use as livestock feed pursuant to the terms tions, and and conditions Of the above named program, 'HEREAS. the regulations of the USDA reQuire the principal to give bond to the USDA with surety to indemnify the ”RDA before approval will be given to the principal's application or applications. that if the above named principal shall faithfully NOO, THEREFORE. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, and fully utilize such potatoes as may be diverted pursuant to such applications exclusively for livestock feed, wtwtner such use for feed is by the principal or by any other person or persons, then this obligation to be vwzd; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. The above—bounden principal hereby consents and expressly agrees to furnish a new bond of indemnity with satisfactory surety (sureties) whenever hereafter the surety (or suretiesl on this obligation, for any reason, Ies not in the opinion of USDA afford the USDA full protection and security. _______ day of..-.~,s e s._in the year .ealed with our seals, and dated this _& __, _. __ one thousand nine hundred and One witness. with full address, to each signature. As tr) __ . . _ “.__- . (NAME OF PRINCIPAL) , , ,,-,,,_.,_ ,_ , _u 7 7 ,, ,! _ _7 '(I‘ Al) (SIGNATURE OF WITNESS) (suauiTuns or PRINCIPAL) (CITY) _W" _(STATEl (STREtT’ AND NUMBER) 48 III ,_ 7,7 (NAME or FIRST SURETY) ,,, (‘4 AL) (SIUNATURE OI SURETY) (SIGNATURE OF WITNESS} (STREE r Aho nuuatn) (LITY) (STAYE) A“: I'I 'NAVI or 5t<0~n s.n:7vl _ ('L.{ 7 V (SII'IAI‘F-‘t or «MN: \‘ (SICNA ICE 0! Sh'PtTw w 1?}! I .‘~0 NI“! ' ' 'I' IinvI, i “V“'“- *9<"I\If- ' t» I'c {FRI-II «Ii In kl 'rr I THIH “’FH 761.17” we H‘iwv' 1" - 6 u iPJAOJddv. (ijiIiI asTAiuS UOFJUZIIIQBIS AirpowwOD HHDLTDDIHDV d0 lNHHlHViFG SHJVlS GHlINfl 401 INSTRUCTIONS The following instructions should be strictly observed in executing Performance bonds: 7. NAMES. The full nmues of the principal and sureties musT be written in the body of the bond and so a tied to the bond, including the first name (spelled out) an: 'n» middle name or initials. 2. WITNESSES. - The Signature of each party must be made 1n the presence of one person, who must sign his nane as witness. All erasures and interlineations on the bond must be noted by the witnesses, who must certi- fy that they were made before the execution of the bond. 3. RESIDFNCE. . The reSidence and post—office address (giVInr number and street, hhere the residence is so deSignatedI of the prinCIpal and each surety and witness must be riven. 4. SURFTIES. . lne sureties on the bond, must be two in hunter and citizens an! regidents of the United States ufl'y x: :rienmen, PWWUUOIIY Vannifteemen, and euployees of the County off: vs shall :1! be eligible to sign as sure” es. A married wonan will not be accepted as a surety. 5. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. . The offICial character and authority of the person or persons executing the er4 In 'he nane of the priDCIpal shal; be certified by the se-retary or o'hwr (ff: »: a . shall be an officer Otrnr than the officer executing the bond) on the form at bottmn of bond when a corpora'; u is prinCipal. In ilPh f such certificate there may be attached to the bond Copies of so much of the records of the principal as wii. show the offiCial character and authority of the officer signing, duly certified as correct under the corp-rate seal by the secretary or other author zed officer as aforesaid.. If the corporation has no seal, such rut rds of authority must be sworn to by the Cfftlfylng officer before a persun authorized to administer oaths for general purposes, and such person must affix his seal. 6. UNINCORPORATED COMPANIES, ETC., AS PRINCIPAL. . When an unincorporated r npany,~5oc19ty lodge, or assoCia- iinn is prinCipal a copy of the resolution or minutes of the meeting of the ;r :wr giverning body of the asso- ;ation, under seal of the association (if it has a seal). authoriZIng an off; rr Ir officers to execute the rwmd must be attached thereto. If the Ctmpany has no 9541, the Copy of the reswlutiwn should be certified as irrect under oath before a notary public or other officer authorized by law to adrnnister oaths (who must nf'ix his offiCIal seal) by the secretary or other Competent officer of the asswciation. 7. MISCELLANEOUS. - If the l’rincipal is an individual doing business under a ttrqany title, he must make af'Idavit that he is the sole owner of the business and execute the bond individually as sole owner of the t rpany named. If a partnership is the l’rincipal, the names of the individuals should be inserted as rinci- pal: on the bond, thus: "John Jones and Iames Suith, thpOSing the firm of Jones and finith", or "John tones and lames Smith, composing the partnership of John Jones a Co." and the bond should be signed by each member of tne partnership. TO BE EXECUTED WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS A CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1, the undersigned, certify that I am the _.c.,, ifl,, _s Secretary of ,, ____-_w________ "-Itc ’NAUE or PRINCIPAL) as principal in the within bond; that .., i __ ,. , n, i ,, . who signed the said bond on behalf of the principal, was then ,__,_ thereof; that I know his signatwra (TITLrIkW thereto is genuine; and that said bond was duly signed, sealed, and attested for and in behalf of said principa' by authority of its governing body: .. ~t AL IAt or PRINCIPAL) n77.- FORMCSS-IIB U. S. DEPARTKNT OF AGRICULTURE DIVERSION AUTHORIIATICN fi'i‘. ”2565’ COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE Form approved b .— Comptroller tit-petal , . 8. STATE pi.22.1955 INVOICE AND COUNTY CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION AND DIVERSION FRESH IRISH POTATO LIVESTOCK FEED DIVERSION PROGRAM XMD 30 co m use ms gAt_E____ p- EILIREAU VOUCHER NO. IOTE: Sub-it Orl‘lnsl of this form to ASC State Office. For the purpose of obtaining payments, I (we) hereby certify that the potatoes described below were mine (ours) and that they were diverted by me (us) for use as livestock feed in accordance with the above named program. QUANTITY MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF DIVERSION SPECIFICATION A ............ CWT. QUANTITY NOT NEETING REQUIREMENTS OF DIVERSION SPECIFICATION A ......... CWT. TOTAL .......... CWT . Claim is hereby made for payment at the rate of cents per hundred« weight and in the amount of $________,__for the quantity Of potatoes meeting the requirements of Diversion Specification A. I (we) certify, this claim is correct and just and that payment has not been received. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS (STREET AND No.. CITY AND STATEl TITLE DATE OF CLAIM I hereby certify that the quantity and quality of the potatoes described above are correct as stated and dim such potatoes were diverted for use as livestock feed in accordance with the above named program. SIGNATURE (LICENSED FEDERAL OR FEDERAL-sTATE IIO'ECTORT DATE OF INSPECTION AND DIVERSION STARTED INICNEO “_— FOR INSPECTORS USE ONLY .M. .I. LOCATION TSHON NAME OF TowN AND NAME OF FARM. NAREHOUSE. FEED-LOT OR OTHER IDINTIFICATIONT FIEE $ EXPENSES 3 IF LOADED. SHow TRUCK LICENSE OR CAR INITIALS AND No. TOTAL$ INSPECTION AND DIVERSION CERTIFICATE SERIAL NUMBER UNDER ABOVE AUTHORIZATION - A v ‘ FOR STATE OFFICE USE ONLY 7mm," VERIHED coRRECT FOR SIGNATURE OR INITIALS 3 I‘ll-'ls‘ -78.. FOIH CSS'IZO U. S. DEPARTK‘ENT 0‘: AGRICULTURE DIVERSION AUTHORIZATION NO. IM COWODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE DATE ISSUED LETTER OF RELEASE 5”” FRESH IRISH POTATO LIVESTOCK FEED DIVERSION PROGRAM xmo 30 COUNTY TO: I‘ 1 l. _I The above numbered Diversion Authorization authorized you to divert and claim payment For not to exceed the specified (nrufidty cf Specification A potatoes foriise as liV3stock feed. This authorization expired on Our records Show the following activity under this authorizatinr. Quantity authorized to be iiverted. .i-" ..iuiiui_ cwt. Fpec. A. Quantity actually dinried. . . . . . __fl __mm"fi_~k#__ cwt. spec. A. Balance authorize; but not iivertei . hfi_______vv_- cwt. Spec. A. ince this authori7a+ion i“ - (vr in effect, please check the atove statement and, j? V is in agreement with your reccx;., 3;gn beiow and return thi: letter to us irmediately so that the account for this diversion authorization can be closed. (AUTHORIZFD REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USDA) STATEMENT OF D I VERTER The abO‘le Statemerlt i5 (:erln t 71‘. V ‘ i‘_ :71 i,I/1th. fit ji‘v'f‘f‘ttf’fii ls }] v pf J It; 1 par‘pi '1r1i will not be the basis for any “:;.7 f-r pxymHHf thwr the program. lease return immediaflafly“fi ~79- APPENDIX II COMPUTATION OF STANDARD DEVIATION FROM REERESSION CR STANDARD ERROR OF THE ESTIMTE First Degas Polynomial: Y - a #- bx An unbiased estimate of {$.12 is Sy.x2 where (1) $3512 - £{y1 -[T «b b (X - 1 )1} 2 or the algebraically equivalent formula 1 n- (2) Sy.x2 - $1.3... (Sy2 - b2 83:2 ) where 812 and Say2 are the Variances of the observed 1 values and of the observed y values respectively. It can be seen from formula (1) that Sy.x is a mean- square deviation of sample points from the estimated regression line. Second Pm Polynomial: Y - a «I- bx 4v car.2 , Total variation is computed by means of the same expression as used for linear correlation. Eyz {I2 - in After determining the values of a, b, and c, we can ascertain the explained variation, which is Eychaxz - A2! 4' bEXY + c2122 - m We may now obtainzzvzsydxz in the same mnner as for linear correlation zystaxz 'Ey‘ "' Eyzcl‘adcz The standard error of the estimate is SYonz /Wfl.n2 -80.. APPENDIX III ~81.- oaém mm.mm diam 3ng atom 3.2 .623 3:: mos: pfiagasqm 093mm” semen mama ammo.“ :omoH 038 «mm: ammfl mmmm 2mm fissfiwaflmawaa 8.3a $32 8.? 3.3 3&2 3.: 3.3 3.3. 8.mm pemamwflwm 8:32; :23 Beam ism NEH 28m $3 83m £8 Sea.” fifiwvafimfi 3.8m 3.mfi afima Ntmm fiéfl 3.5 8.3 mafia mamas pemamwflacww 0052.me mom? 50m: 33m ~33 H88 03m 5mm Emma figmfifisovhasnnom «mama $25 8.8a $.00 35: mime 3&9” 84m 8.3 escapism 2.433; 058 N35 25m «$3 Rama 8qu Room 32.” momafi.§owmwafiw§ Ran fiéfi 35: 8.4a $43. 8.0 Quad 3;: mama psoampsem 3.32% figs 802 new: 3% «2.2 83 133 8% Emmm Mmflww nonsmoon 8&8 gamma adama no.9” Rfimm No.3 :Nfifi 3.8 3.8.” pcmagfisum 00:”ng mmzmm mmmm: . some: omofi 395 Ram gem: ommoa fimwm “mauve nonsoboz 35mm 4.39. ififl 3.3 3.93 3.: 3.x mtmm 93.2 Eggnog 8.33% Same 080m 3mm: :62 New: 35 3.8m mmflfi flammafioflwmmmoo Easing nostfin was ... .805 38% aospm scope noose soot condom Rammed Io>MH Iode Iobdu ovenoaoo £33 flute casein H33 .35 a .83 undo» wqflpeths mono mmma «enemas an sapwood dowmnm>ao can no soapmuomo mantloua mqmda 32m $52 .34.: 8.2 $48 83m 5:3 40.8. 938 fiflwpfivw $3.8 8.68% Boom 803 88: £03 .33. 020 9:3 32 mfimm 3.33 hmpEmboz 3.2...” 4018.“ mm..:. Nae—H 43.00..” amom 3.3 mm; mm. 3 pcmambflsvm . 9.3.80 oodgmfia $93 mmmom £3... .33 mtkm 3: 8me EN 0.887.300.8898 mgoflpmmflno :0 335.3 3.430 d 5on xoopm nohmpm xoopm nonpm xoopm gunman wmlomma Imfid 1935 Iobfl 0 3.8.30 £309 338 godmgmfin H38 330 < 6&5 chum» wcwpwths mono 0mm.” £5.qu ho, Ewhmoum Coflmnmbflv 93 Ho nofipmnmmo again.” mafia. .hmfl Ba .33 .mmma 336.: .oogm 330qu $3332? .aoflfifib oHnapowg 0cm pghm Jam 02H Emnmonmlnmzofiwnmmo co 0.5.835 330m 23.5 no phommm 5383.. 595 0350500 .03st .5134.” 3.32. «0.02. Hmoomm 8.3.2” 3.4.3” 00.0mo ..:..me mega“, mpcmambgwm poHHmolunHupoa 242.42% 38$ Hmmmwm 498% «N32 SEQ 30.3 43.3.. $30 $62 323 38.3 3.0 mo.m 3.: 8.0 5.: mm.m pcmampfizvm . 3.30 8&2 a 83 So: 8% Oman 9% $3 3.3 33 as 3:3 5.: Eofiwmflno cofiuofiq «:8 4 .83 .33» £935 .38.. £983 .33.. 5a.»... omummma I023 Iobfin 0953 0393.00 333. £309 aoflnohu H309 3.26 < .0on I H can: 32 old.“ Ema. - 83 n 84mm $.44” £68 353 8.2a 3.5m 3.5 2.8." 6.3 pcmflmwgnwm 8.38% 833 8.8m 8a: 838 93$ 88m 82m 238 €va mash. $.fim 8.3M $.93 46.52 2:5 3.2 3.8. 8.32 €32.28 oo.momomw wmmmaa Homm: omomc mmwm: «mama magma upmmm ommwm Awmwwwozmz «Swen 8%: 3&8 8.8a «154“ 8.8 2.5 02 23338 8.883 $32 93mm «.33 $me SQ... 8mm NR: 088 “....wwwnmwnfi 3.8: 3.82 8.3m £88 :62 mmsa 8&3 o:.~fi 8.8 23...»?5 8.223 88.: $2... oat «33 88» .58 momom mas mmmmm épwmwgmwnfl 83% 3.3a no.9: 8.8a 935 8:6 3.8 8.8 83333 8.88% Samoa 0.3mm mmzom .042: 94$ 30% 88m aflmfi.§owmwmmmnom mm.omm mw.~na ow.mqfl wo.ama ww.mma mm.o~ AN.H~ mo.~o acmawpflswm 83028 «N32 :33 82m 32m 88m 2.3m mmomm HmQNA.§%MMw§b Hm.mom m:.mma m~.oma Hw.mm mm.m~a Hmong mm.mw om.am pcmaa>adam 8.8mm; Hommm 38: $93 «88 $80 .53 88m 38m Mmflww nmgsmoon Eoflwmnpo c3238 320 4 .83 x83 5838 x03» spasm £933 $133 Im>3 ImbHH :2,qu 1 03.880 333 330.... 53.8.8 H33. 35 4 .88 Banana 0.1: mama. 8.03 833 3.5a 8.3 2.88 8.8 :52 3.8 8.8 £33.88 93.30 85:8 a «RR 92mm Sm: 88m 8%: SS Jams mad: 2.9m 3:8 amenmboz 8.8 8.8 2.2. 8.8 01$ .3.m 6.5“ 3.8 3.8 839.9% 9.3.39 8.02.2 a. 88m #3 03mm 23 Nfimm 33 ES .33. 8.2: 333 Ampopoo 2038.38 Samafim Eda 4 .0on .33... 5.33. 38% gofipm .xoopm 5.83 omnmmfi I954 Iain prfl SHE“ 338 £30,... SEEKS H33 was d. .88 .nmmm wcapmthe mono mmmfl «unpuoe sh Emhmong uoflmhmbfin cap mo Coflpwymmo agellowm mqmde ~81... .Nmfi as. .39” .mmma 336.: ..wogm mcflmfimz Hwéflaoflmdw .8me3 033%..» new pfispm «=4m mam ewhmonmllmcowpmhmmo Cowmnm>am opwpcm smHhH mo phommmwhaxmmZE Scum cmpdeoo «magnom 2.8K 8.83 8.3.: 3.83 8.2.3 8.8: $.88 3&8 Ram: 3:23.98 . poanwolluawvoe 8383; Nmmma 383 93$ $8; £38 833 mamas Baa 8:22.333: 80384.48 8399.3 33o 4.8.88 x83 398$ Moe...» 5.33 x8...“ 5.3.5 $.33 . 1 Im>dH lobdq Io>fiH okuQHoo 333 333 c3238 H38 330 4 .88 cosnavnoollnfl wands ('I 588:8»... 885a 5828 $085 858: 888a 888 90m: .588 883 7......“pr 50.08 515 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.55 8.5 3.8 €324.53 838m 5 H83 :88 55d 88 83mm 83 538 88 855 Amflwomfi 53 8.55 43.0: 8.02 8.88 885 8.5: 3.3 8.5 £3333 8.884 5 08m: 8me 85m 952 £85 58m 8.35 0.88 8438 fipwmwpmwhg 8.52 2.8m 3.58 8.88 8.8m SQ: 8.QO 3:5 no.3 @3383 8.88m 5 8,38 888 885 £55 588 555 3.22 938 05$ épwwflwgm. 3.88 8.5m 8.88 848 8.85 8.8.” 2.52 8.5 8.5a @3238 m”, 8.438 a $58 588 588 808 888 884 5588 38m 855 “WWW; . 8.88 5.85 3.08 858 5.08 888 8.8: 8.58 8.48 paflmpfifi 8.538 5 5588 $88 88fi $82 8:08 833 055: 808 ommafléhwflwfim 8.88 5.8mm 3.8: 8.58 8.58 8.55 3.8: 2.48 3.8 0.23395 omémmmm a . 8me momma.“ mam? mmmmo 55885 8on 2503 oomfim mflmfi fifiww nonsmoon maofimmflno soflumpa 380 4 .88 x88 5.8.5 .385 5.35 x83 €85 @888 I083 1954 $83 2.83 38909 3309 208.8»3 H309 3.30 4 oommm 832.55 claw BABE. - 86'- 05.:5 8.05m 8.:8 8.88 05.8: 50.5 5.58 8.5 8.88 0.08388 ”8.80 5558 5. 8558 5588 585 3:5 5:88 508 5508 058 n55m: “.933 nonsmomm 8.5: 08:5 .558 5.3 5.5m 58:: 5.88 5.5 5.88 88$:me 90 00.:8:m 5 55:8 0558 505.: 8:58 .388 588 5508 5:5 8:0: 333 0 nmnEm>Dz 5.08 5.58 3.5 5.8 5.88 585 5.58 5.8 5.5 fiflmwfiww . Ham 05.0:NHH 5 50585 58:00 85:88 8:8: «5858 :88m :0885 mmm 55588:.pzovnm0opoo 2038890 55.880 850 .4. .0QO x85 £0.85 :03... 5.35 038..." 5.85 5.58 Im>fiq nopflq Im>fiH ongH mampoa mawpoe_cowmpm>fim proa maaso ¢ .0QO .gmoh wcapmxpms mono omma «mgpcos mn_emnmonm scamnmpav 039 M0 nowpmpoao osa1onm mamde .58 Ed .58 .58 .4555 .3535 8330.8 5.38535 .8398 3858» 93 p35 «in max Emuwohmlnmcofimpmmo :8.“on 5.8.8an 330m gmflH m0 phenom 88mm»)... Son.“ vmfiaeoo .mgom mo.4:m: wmdammm om.mmwa omommaa Naommmm om.mmo Hmommam H©.mmm mmommda mpcmawbflsdo poahmolamawpoa 803888 85.880 850 4 .805 38% 00.35 038% £935 :89.» 0935 5.558 11. IOPdH IOqu l¢>mq onmvH 838 838 03238 8309 830 4 .85 Il‘k’l’i‘i‘l‘l‘t‘ ' III'III‘I‘OI'II. II villi'tf 800800 0.18 388 -87- .53 ES .omma .33 «4.95.: g....xfl.,..?uw.wm wcflmvfimz Hausfisog 50.8.33 oanmpwwm> Em pfifim «ER azx ewhmohmllmqoflmnmmo coflmpwba opmpom smfiHH mo 939mm 3433: Son...“ 84.5930 ~08..st 3.28 8.83 $.23 2.484 Hm.mm4m 3&8 4m.w$m mo.mom 34343543458 . . poafiolflapoa oo.N4maflm4 mHmNo4N wammmmfl ~m~m4w omw©m4 mm4momH m4mmmm mPQNOmH Hammwfl cm4oomfl.psovmampoa pm.oom mm.44m mm.HmH mm.w4 40.4m4 m~.mfi 4N.mmm om.mm Hw.mwfl gsmawpflsvm 828 8....me 4482 $424 9%... am: 3.33 NH: 582 ENE 03% 7.58 82. 3.83 3.4.2 mm.QO 85% 8.984” $.84. 4mé$ 3&3 $.34 $33.83 0.3.80 8.283 333 £43m 28$. 43% Exam $an 3.8% SR4 SEE its $2 Hmémfl 40.49 54.84 $.48 $.me 84$ 8.80 44.5 8.3m 454395 panama 8.44344 8484 0348 8%: $43 34m? 8044 448.8 $4.4m 8492.438 4E4 mm.4m2 3J2 . 44.4mm $.84 43.3 $.94 8&3 8.9m $.48 €2§§8 43.80 8.44244 mmofim $88 $93 momS 02me 354 83: 44mmm 48% 333 49a: 2.4m» «4.8m mmé4m «0.044 £58 3.3 8.34 mm.4m omdma €325.83 . 4.3.80 8.3%; 35% SEE 30% «3% 883 mmmmm 44344 SR4 34% 333 . hhghpmm 2.84 3&3 mmém 44.45 No.mom 8.0: 5.0% Saw 3.43 £3...»ng 828 8.4334 40.34m .233 R48 44N4o 03.54 42.04. 5m4ma ommmm mpmomnlhovbmég mcofimmflno 84288 undo 4 .89.. 484m 493$ 48..» 493$ 48% 483.5 $.33 V lobflH IOPHH IQPHHH OfiUH £33 3309 83.98 4309 9:5 4 .ommm Ba. 38 0.3.5 mafia 2.53 2.2% 8.33 8:: minds 8.: 92$ 3.9” aflmmfififlgéfi p358 om.mommmm w mmmiw 038m 358 wmmm $83 ONE 338 mm? Soaoflfifivnfifl 2&me 8.05 3.23 Si 3.2.2 mmé £62 93. 8.20mfiamagflsow poahm 3.333 a 5mm: 3&3 393m m8: 332. 8.2 @082” momm 832m 333. hpwsppmm $.88 wmémm 3&0: 3:: 333$ 2.: 3.03 2.8 S.mmSp§Hm>§¢m 93.30 8.33% a 83% fimmw £83 SS 833 SE. $.23 .38 «mime 9M3 gnaw 4333 moémm 963m 3:: pmsmmom m3 tummm m.m cméSmpzmHmpgwm poanmo . 8.53.3: w H382 €88 24mg 3mm 88%: ES momma 2mm 32% 333 mw nonsmown . $.83 3.8: mofimR :ofi mméomw £3 $.93 8A godmofiqflgfivm €28 8.38% a 8.88 ESE +383. 32 mowoom m9 333 $2 $.33 3:3 hmacw>oz 3.23 3.08 3.22 mm. 4105: mm. 8.3 mm. om.flm§coaw>§wm 0.3.89 8.53:: @ $.32.” 582 8ng «.3 832a mm Nam: a 83mm 3.33 nmnopoo maofimmflno 83.859 330 4 .0on x83 £983 x83 5.83 x82 393$ omnmmma Imde Io>fiH Imbfl 0:3 H309 333 Swaps 133 .55 < .0QO Adowmmm wmowma mHoONJN nzowmmm wmowmd mHoomqm pumambflfiwm poahmo 00.0m0200 0 m0mm00fi m00mmH :0m000 mommaofl mowmma :0mmwm A.0s0v nonopoo Eofipwmflno 0000.808 0300 4 00% x0000 00.00% x0000 00.80% x0000 00.80% 3:32.. ImbflH Io>dq Im>dH mafia; mdmuoe mawpoa.coflmhm>am proa maaso 4 oommm .Hmmm wcflpmxnms mono omma amnpcos 55.5wnwopm aofimnmbav map mo coflpmmmao mnansnm wqm¢e .wmfl 000 .omfi .mmfi ..finds 600.5% 0030020: $0,533,000 .0335 0E30w0> 0:0 pflspm «adm as“ smgwopmlnchflpmnmmo moamgm>am opmpom smflnH Ho pnoaommszmw3: Eonm ompdg800 .oohsom £6$fi 8.8? $.5me 9N6» 3.083 SAN $.83 91% fifimwmfimfiflgfig poanwoltawpoe 3&3ng momma: momma,“ Smafim Sim 4838 40mm 820: :02 mmmmofimfifisflgoa 83% 8.50” $.08 8.0 8.50 :2 02%.: Ram 3&8 0.030505 03.30 00.0000m 0 000000 0m0~0 mpmmma mNHN 000000 400 00000 Hana wqwowa A.0=0V 00; $0.me 8.3: $502 8.0 0.0.0me 33 8.13 $6 00.520.033.83 03.30 8.883 a 380 «$03 880m 05m 495$ 30 08me new figmi.€0v HE: Efipmmflno 03009.8 0.35 0 .025 x000... 00.80% x030 00,005 0,030. £0.83 omnmmfi .6de I0>HH l0>dH 0:? 30000. 330.0 8.3.850 H309 0:8 4 .003 } U05C HQHHO Quid m 5%, a 0:.Hm4m wH.Hwo mm.o:~m ow.ma cw.~ogm Fo.m HH.mNo :m.QH wo.mmpm acmfimwflwwm oo.momomm @ wgowmma mammgm mmwowm mam: cmapmma :oaa awaaqm ampm Hoammm Awpwovomwz cm.mmg: mm.ogm no.0:mm mo.om ma.mpnz ow.: No.mqm mw.ma ga.ommm pcmfimpflswm 00.0mommm # woopaoa mmpogm wmmofima ommw engaged mama mmmmmm Hmfim PONHNNHA.pwwwmmwhm¢ 3.5:: 43.53 amimomm 3.3 mmfimfi 3.: $.26 3.5 mm.m3m pcmagfiswm oo.wmmaom a moomfloa emammm mammoma HpOm gnawoofl mafia ammomm memo OOONmNHA.pwmwpmwnma 3.32m 3&3 $408 3.3 $4.3m 3.: 3&3. om.mH $.38 pcmagwsvm oo.:~mmwm m NmJoqu .mmomww magmmm mma» :mmmmwa mama oazomm afimm ammmmm wwwmmmpmm mm.ammm om.mpw NN.©H~N oa.om ~:.Homm o~.mm 00.0mm :m.~o ww.omom pcmam>fiscm oo.momwon a cmmmma omqaam gnawpm oqzmm :wwoomH mafia Homoom Hmmam mmmzmmA.gszwmmmcmn om.oomg mm.m~oa no.0mmm om.mo mm.am~g mo.®H mm.Hooa mm.om mo.mmmm pcmaw>fiscm 8.38% a .3853 :mwmmm mmflmfl :mmfi gamma 93¢ Hmmmwm gamma Some: MHpmMomm mm.moo: mm.mam m~.mw0m wm.o~ om.Hmmm om.o mo.NHm m®.mH om.moom pcmam>flswm om.m.fimomm a,” 23m; mtomm mmomfla gm 0803.“ 3mm mmfimm mm: :Smofi Mmflww . Amnemgoz chHpmmflHno coaum>aa mHHso 4 .ommm xoopm nonwpm- xoopm nonapm xoopm nogmpm ”muommfl ..be Imde $5.3 mug mampos mawacn_cOngm>an Haves maaao ¢_.ommm vmficwpco Ollpm mam»? oa.»:~:4 @ HNFJJH ”Nmom figmwm memma pmwom aqmwm A.pzoV mumscmw om.~mm Hm.mm mw.m:m mm.~mm Hm.mm :m.m:m pcmampflswm poanao omomomm: a. mmflma 2.0mm 4ng mmflma wwomm .2wa A333 hon—589 oo.m®H o:.om 00.4ma mo.mma 04.0m 00.4ma pcmflm>flsvm poahwo oo.~4®pm a 0:000 ogmoa :momm cacao mamoa amomm A.pzovaonsw>oz mm.ma om.: «2.:H mm.ma om.: m:.:H pcmampflswm poanwu om.~mmm a ommo flame mmam ommo Haoa mmam A.pzovnmnopoo mcowpmwflno 53.853 3.30 4 5QO xoopm gohmpm xoopm nohmpm xoopm nohmpm wmlmmma 1min 10>.3 I03” Commho mawpoa mampoe scamhm>am ngoe maado d .oon «lull \I I “ll All I’ll, i ‘ll'H onmh 33me mono mmma «3982 he. :83th scampmxfiu 95. Mo aofipwpmmo 05123 mama. .Nmma new .omma .mmma ..d.m.m.p .moapgom wcflpmxgmz ngspHsOflgm< .coflmflpflm manmpmwm> new pfifim ...;R 9Q Ewhwonmnlmgflpwhmmo 5.3.823 opmpom ngH Ho flammm 3x83: 895 vmpsmEoo .mogom - 1.. 9 - mm.ow®4m mm.~ma~ om.mmmum mo.mmm mm.ommgm m:.o~ om.oH:~ mm.mmm mo.m~a~m pcmHm>fiswm . . . poanm011mampoe om.~ommmmm m mwmmomma «Hmomom pwmoomm apnoea HOHomJNH Npmmm enmesom ooHHw Hommwpmfl.psovmampoe wo.mma: wa.mw~ mg.mwmm om.:m Hm.HmH: .oj.o H~.o- mm.~m 00.3mmm pcmflapgaum _ . €28 oo.HH:mom » mmoooma mNonN ”mowama mummfl pmopwqa wmmm mmomwm mzooa mmmwowa A.pzovmcau muofipmmfiano coflmpmpfla maaso 4 .oomm xoopm gunman goopm sonapm goon» gogmpm pmromma Imbm‘H |0>HH lm >3 0S fimz 33.09 3309 no H.835 H309 3.26 4 Juan i’li! ’I @96 flvcootinm amfia - 92 - émma Ba .omfl .mmma .4565 .oogm wfipmxam: 2.33334 .83?8 £930?» cad pasnm qs¢m nzxfiswnwonmllmmoapwpmgo cofimnm>am opmpom SmHhH Ho gnomomthxmmzi Eon“ copsgsoo «mangom apnea 5.95 8&8 $.22 3.3: 8&8 5.22 134.58 poapdoluflapoa Summofi w $88 .238 :mmwm 83$ 28% Hammwm 338 £309 8.? 8:3 mmsm 8.2. $3: mmém @3395 93.80 8&2m m macaw gamma H32 mfiowm ammmfl HQNH 3:8 >§ &&.m&H £&& mag &&.m&a 3&& 8:3 pcoampgwm 0.3.30 8&2: m. 3mg 85mm 53m 2mg mobmm $3M Tex: 3.2; 2.4mm 3.8.“ Hméma «Him... 3&3 Hméfi fiflfiéfim 828 8.9% a mom; £03 :35 8mg £8: :33 323 fig wmémm $.92 , Hoéma mmémm $.03 8&2 pumaggvm $3.80 8.3me @ mmmmw 38m mQE mmmmm 38m mmum: 3:8 gang 3&3 3&5 E38 310.3 Séma ESE pcmagfidm 0.3.30 . Aofioovkhmdcwh. muoaumwaano coaum>aq uddsu d oommm .xoopm aonwpm Moopm nonwpm Moopm nogwpm wmlmmma Io>aq |o>an |o>aq cowwho 332. 333 Swain H32. 2.30 d .0on N:.mqm no.maa mm.oma Na.mzm no.maa mm.omH pumaa>flswm poanwo 838.: 38% 8mm; 33: mag 08% 3%; figs 82. ~m.~mo oa.mmm ~m.~mm pm.~mo 0:.mmm ~m.~mm pcmam>flswm poagmo 843mm fiNSQ «H8: 883 8me $8.: 883 figs ‘3: 8.05 8.3: 3.8: 8.05 8.3: $.34 0.23958 328 oo.mmmmm 30QO 223 833 moan 323 8.89 3:3 3%: 8&3 8.2m mafia 8&3 3.0% mafia fiflgfifi 03.80 ooomooo: ammmqmm mmmmma mmmaoa wmmzmm mmmmma mmmaoa “.933 £09m: 32$: 34% 5:3 mgr—”3 pmémm 5.3a €33pr 053.58 8.8mm 9 H52 333 mmmfi 28: ESE mmm: 7933 bmsfimm CAR 9?? $48 25.3 8.2m 34mm £33.88 93.80 8&23 a 8:98 gamma mafia” mogmmm 8me mafia 333 E23 Hméfi 8.3m 8&8 HQSm 8.3m 93% $3298 page omomEH: ‘ w magma 3mm: mammm mmowma, 3mm: mammm Afikov nmnswomm 34mm 2&2” RJB 348 8.8a $52 0.23958 $353 8.903 a 03$ £3: Ram 93% £13 08% 33v “8532 mm; afim 3.: mm; om.m mmé E3333 p358 8.5% a @an $3 2.: 3% $2 ES figs 9838 Eadpmmnno qoflnopa 330 .Q. 38% 303m 3933. x83 £933 x83 5.83 Nmnwmma Imih 1.0wa term Cowouo mampoa mampoa cowmnmkra proa 3.30 d ooomm .23 380% wcfipwthe mono “mm.” «2305 *3 Emhwonm 203.856 93 Ho 5.33.890 one-IRS Ema. 2.3 3:: 25 2.3 3:: 9... £3335 0.3.80 admmfl MW NNS 8R mmm ~wa 03m «Sm 3:3 Ewing 8.8 25m 8.3 8.8 34% moémfiflgfiwm page 8.0mm: a“ 803 RNS «an: 35 R8.” «an: 3:3 has“... mmoa NH. 3...“ mm?” NH. 34 @393st $0.780 8&8 a 2m 2 mmm cm 3 gm 7.38 $8503 24.. ma. 8A :10. mm. 84 pcmagfidm p358 omoamm a mmw mm :2. mm» mm :2. 7938 nonsmboz Boagmmfipo c3233 228 < .0QO xoopm £933 .393 £983 .33» 5.33 omummfl tuba ImZHH Imbfl 532233 3309 3309 53.8.5 H35 3:8 « .83.. u “.1 .oum . ..Hmmh .....qume mono mmma «usage .8. awkwoum coflmnmbwd 9.3. Ho :ofipwnwmo Balsam M1849 _ ‘ émfi as. .omfl £93 .3335 .oogm $335 Hméfisflamd .coamflfifiowmp and 3.5.5 Jam 9R Edhwofihannofimhmmo :ofimhoznn ofimpom nmEH mo puommm 5x03? Eon.“ capsmsoo “oogom 3.82 3.23 33% 3.89 «fifimm R.£mfic3§§8 p339...£3§ 8.38.5 a 8:23” 333 £03“ 8854 3ng £82 333 £39... mcofimmfipo coagpa 3.25 d .0QO 38% sofipm U33m 5.33 .33» 5.83 Rummfi Io>.3.. Iobfi Im>3 nommho 338 £33 c3238 its was 4 .89m 85:38 nip; Sm: -95.. omJNn anom: mmomqm 3.0mm «Homma Son: gomo g6: mmémpcmambwsvm 823 ooéggj w 383 -530 mmmg 838 Ems 38: 033 $20 3me 3:8 hmnsmboz «3: £43 36: «SK 3.4m 3.3 pnmagficm 823 8.33 a mmmmm N05 083 mmmmm SS 033 A253 .8938 mcofimwnno coamapfl. mflgo « .0on x83 £983 x83 5.33. x83 53% SIRS Impufl 305.3” I033 Copwcflmwzr 338. 3309 cousin H38 230 4 60% .88» 3.33.82 mono 0mm.” .2302 ha. 52on coamnmbfiu may no coafimnmmo Salim mama. .33 Ba .omS .mmfl 2.319: .mogm 33me fin:fl8€$ EOEEE 39%?» 38 Rain «ER 9? emnmonmllmcofimhmmo cowmnoban opmpom smflH mo pnommm 5x33: Eon.“ @3me00 30.“de amém 3.3 ~93 25 Joém pm. 8.3 9% Jim: puma??? pflagfioa om.om$ w mammm Emma 8mg omfl 33 R 3.0.3 mmfi mammifizoV 333. 5.: om.m :10. 3.: 93 :3 €395.53 0.3.80 8:? a 23 H3 H2 NSH Gm H2 3:3 :98: muoflmmfipo Swain was 4 .0on x83 5.33 x83 5.39m xoopm 5.39m omummfl I954 .6de Im>LdH :oawcflmmz mawpo a mampo B so ..nmumbam pro a 3.36 4 5QO 85:38 clam Sm: -96- mmAm 8.» «mam mAm 8; «mam 23a>§8 228 8.33 a mad SE new $3 85 38 35.3 28h. 3.3a 3.3 ooém dam." 3.0m 8.3 $3323 0.3.3 8.8%: a 48mm 4&8 03mm :Xmm :38 03mm 338 .8: Ssh :3... mafia $.59 3.3 mafia pnoagfig .2488 8.483 a atom :33 fimzm 33m :mNNN imam “....ro 2E: £43m 3.3.” RAE .Qéom 3.8 3.3.” no.3 Quafi «Tam fioawpdam pflfio ooAmNNm a 08.5 mpmom mwoom 2&3 963 «83 2%. Smog infigov no.3: 33mm 929 8.3“ $.05 3:3.” .435 $23 3.3 wo.mm €025.53 93.3 oo.mmmmm a $38.” ammom Rmmm 33m Rflm «..:Hm 2.43 93% mammm €33 humanoh ~3me Eafi 4384 5.03 megs” no.2 fiam 8.2. 6.3 fifigfig 93.3 8.308 a nag E8: ammo: 43m mmgm mmtm 033 Snow «28. 3:3 . . 5835:. $.me no.9: 3.9: 3.3 +35% 8.4m 3.3 mm6m .83 pnoflapgvm acid... 8&fi8 a Emma 030m Rim Emmm 3n: mama.” momom $09 433 A253 . 9220009 93 Sumnno EEBBE 9:8 4 .0on x82 saga x8...» 5.38 .323 5.8.5 smuommfl I023, Io>m .6de GouqumdS £30.... wipes comfifin its 58 14 4 48% '-A -97.. 9.7mm: 8.9.: 3.3m in mom «pom: .233.” 2.6m. accmow. «moo? £83355 0.3.30 8.0003 0 52: Ram 0000.3 0033 20$ 82% $02 .52. 003: 323333. 00.00 00.3 3.8 H32. 00.8 00.3 .00.; ~13 muaa fiflupfivm , r ., 0.3000 8.30: 0 mommm 84: 30mm $30 «000 40$ $3 $02,. 09$ 3:35:50 8.50 00.4.2 00.8.0 Sana 328” 2.00 2.0m 00:5 090$ 0023300 03.30 00.80% a .0302 00.043 323 $30 Roam «0000 Rmfi 50mm 0R3 fipzovuofiooon Bofiwmfino 0000.828 0300 . 4 .800 xoopm 00.30 .83» 5.3.5 x08.» 09030 5:33 :25 um»? :25, 380.0 5.82 333. £32. 5.3.838 H300. 3.30 4 .83 0.39m 3.33.32 no.8 0mm." £03205 .3 03%th «8.3.8.36 on... no 203.0930 ensue-w 3mg. opmma 93 6mg” .mmma :4 .n .m .D .ooEmm wcfimxhg Hanspasoag «coflyEwpmmob and 0.3km «in Ex Edamohmalgfiwummo 0030.323 0930a :35” mo fiomom .0333: Son.“ 000.5950 Sufism 3.30m 00.05 3.32 3.8.: oméuw 8&8 flampw No.02. £60m. upcngfi—wo 03.31.3300 om.m~.mm3” a mommmw ~5qu $3.3 mgom 4043mm mwmoam Rmmm :wmwww gamma 7.533.309 msfipamnno 030.350 3.20 < .800 303.0 0283 .83.. 093.6 .38.» €930 5:30.” lobfl I025, .6de £09.3wa 33.8. 333.. 035.850 033. 3.90 4 .83 02.032 0.1% 30:. -98.. mmJH mn.m 5.0 «me—H mfi.m .36 333.33 93.30 84% a 83 £3 23 83 .5: 38 his w... 8:2 mméa mmé omém a: 2:3 E3393 p330 . 8.38 m .32 E. 3% 3.5 $3 3% 3:3 3. 8:3 mon mmdm 8.4: mon mm.~m £3333 pfifio 8.88 a can; 8mg R2: mmds saw 39: Tfiofiflfi 8.49 33m 3.3 00.30..” 3.4m 3.3 acoagfima 3.780 8.3:. a .85. $5 8.: 30R 35 8.2 35:93. , .6.wa $.44 Rém aflmm $33 3.3 £33.33 pflfio 8.33 a .38 £02 $3 $5 $8” .23 333%.... A $.04: 8.8 mmgmm $6.: 8.8 mam “63:38 93.30 8.3mm a mmoom Scam 2.3m mwoom 30% 2.5a A.§ov§§w 5.3 5.3 pm.mm €28 S.Nm 5.? 3:33.33 fiafio 8.82 a Re? .amfi 3d: mmomm :mwfi 3d: , Taxovnofioown amfim Sam 3.3 :m.mm. 32mm RAN paoaega 32.0 8.2% a 088 83H 32. 088 83H Rm» Tasovnofiopoz uncapwmfiob :oamnobfin undo 4.8mm macaw £33m xoovm £0.35 #03.» 393.5 pmlwmma tuba Io>3 I923 dfihcmfinuo £33. £33 :3233 H38 .36 63$ B. 35E ...4m in augmofiiucflfiummo Samantha 338 33¢ ...a phenom 5x83. 28.... @2328 360% 3.3me no.8 wmma .chqe he. gunman “8.3.9036 on... Ho 5.398% 951.3. 5mg. émfi E. .omma .mm& .3365 ..oEam 83.3.5. 1§p§o€w< .noautEpowmp “ooh—Sm 3538 9|.» Em: -99~ 34m mad ‘ 91mm 3.: ms £.m~ £3.»ng 93.30 onmNm a in: Sum 88 in: Ram 88 3.3334 2.2: 8% fiJfi 2.9: eméu $.34 pcoflupfiwm p358 098:5 » 2on .33 $03 9on . $3 $02 3.385% 84.2 3% mafia 8.3a 8.3 mafia pqoagfiwm $3.30 8.932 a 502 3% 08% S8; 33 082 5.3335?"an 5.3a mm.mm «man 47$.“ mm.wm $.03 pcmagfioa €28 oimomom a 80% Bow Raw: 08mm 38 3%: “....uovgfiu anpwmnpo coflnmzd 3.16 4 .026 #83 53$ 38% nogm .63... £938 wmxmmfl , :0de IchHH .6wa ugh—”Econ 333. 333.. soukfin ~33. .58 4 scam 380% wcaawxnms no.3 mmma «39:9: .3 gunman 236.8»? on». Mo cowpwumono one-cum 3mg. .53 Ba .omma .mmfi .4565 .oodram 33on 133334 .5633 Hfipomg cud 35E «SE S Ewawonmlmcofiaummo 5.3.359 opmpom swab” mo pnommm buxom? 595 33930 .0858 86$ mmqmm iéwm 85$ mmémm .2..me 3:3:39 _ 933?.333 8.082 a .333 momofi ommmoa .333 8mg." 0&qu . .21- 793338 ”cosmwfipo 33.358 .55 4 .026 .83» 5.33 .33... 5.83 383 5.3.5 hmuomfi E: Inn...» nopm 5838 £33. £38 aoflflpa H33 «:8 ‘ 4 .026 i” I] 8233 0.1:. Ema mmomH mm.m 3:3“ wmoma mmd 32nd £433....st $3.30 cosmou 4 mmom 8m 44.3 mmom cum $3 38:35.08 mmé $.m 3.4 $3 Q.~ 8.“ 0.43338 pflfio 9.3.3 4 2.: NR mg as Nam .45 figsoroneotz 8034330 34.359 343 4 .0on 403.. 42.4mm “33- 4988 484m 483m. Hmmnmmfi .6de not—”H .6de 330.4. 338. cofikfin 43.8 .33 4 64% wcflpmxnme no.8 mmma 408893me .85.: mo 34.3.... a.“ 39:9: .3 gunman cowmnmbfiu one. no 5.3de% oerJm 392. .S3 45 .omma .mmfl ..4.a.m.= 63me 8382...: 4423334 .cofifigpomg Us.» 99E «34m a smnwofinlmcoflwummo 483.859 opmpom :38” no phenom 5383.. son.“ 603930 .0938 - 100 no . 510mm.” 5.. 43.4on 5.3.856 9.3 a.“ opwmwoflgm on: 36 ugfihmccmmn .263 fig: mm.mmm 3.84 3.2. mmémm 343453. 938333.439 8.933 4. 382 $48 389 4.334 SEN 389 . 323330.... 8.4 m4. 3.." _\ omen 3. 3.4 4432.28 84.48 2.me 4 mm... m: Sm m3 4: 8m figs»: maoflmmfino 38.5»8 343 4 .88 483 . 483... 483 5.34m 48% 48.34 cmnmmfi 305...." .635 .5de dnghmdcom 338. £33 549835 4.33. .448 4 .026 . 845489.54 Em: -101- cc.» pfifim 9.4m Ban Empwoumulmcoflpwnmmo coamnmpa opmpom zmflH Ho toawm 3x33: Scum voyages .Pmfi 4:4 .32 .mmma .4565 .333 45,.me 449334944 .84.?3 3%...me «ooh—om. .omnmmma 5 844303.84 €23 433m 25 23 93 figs 23 4.23.4433" fiémw :mfifl 2.34 fizmmu :mfifi 8&3 334323 43.80....333 2.8%.“ 4 :83 Sum: mam; 48$ 34m: 9mm: 333333 . 2.4 mo.m 33m 3.4 no...” 2A fiflgfifi 336 2.42 a 8mm .32 2: 8% 484 2: 338.3. 3.3 $.44 85 8.2 2.4m 8.3 443394... 43.80 264.8 4 BSA 44% 0me 2.4.3 mug ammo 79334.54 8.3 3% 3.3 $3 3% SAN pcflggwu 34.30 8:38 a 43m.“ 33 82 3mm 3% 82. 7933423: 3:3 84m 3.8 32.3 Ram 3.8 €324.64 93.30 8A2: a $5 «8444 09: mmmmw momma and: dfioifififim mm.m~. 25mm 8.3 mmfi» damn mozmm €33.95 0.398 8.33 4 N88 08.04 «on: ~88 842 30: 7.38353. 80344430 34233 34:0 4 .0on 48..» 48». .334 :83... omnmmfi . {Ohm tuba Iobm .n 44.409 3309 «8.3.835 4 62% Vaughn ollum H.349 -192- .pmma .omma .mm& 336.: .oogm wcflofim: 3.892023 .coflfimm. 053%; . 28 35am .....«m S swhmoumllmuoapwhoao cofimhmka opmpom swab“ mo fiomom .3333: £099 nmpdmsoo 383m ohm-0mm.” 2H cmpwmaoapfia no.2: 0023.895 hand: mo 33: 25 on» 93 «9305.5 98 3.8% 52a 3.3 8;. 91mm moAm 3;. SAN pcmaguam 93.80 00.93 a 3.3.“ SE. 848 3.34 SE was “.....Svnoecmoon mzowpwmfino godmpmfifi 3.30 4 50mm 303» 3933 x83 5.33 x03... saga imuomfi 803mb 303A loam £33. 33: 8.8.8.18 H38 ”38 4 Jam Hm?» 9‘3on mono 0mm.” noofiphogw .33.”: Ho 3.59.» a.“ 3958 an gunman 233.85% 95 Ho 20.3.9890 9513a 35.9 f‘flF! Ef‘f '1“ ND” éi u;-;LY Date Due ”>115. ‘e! Demco-293 T "'TITJ'ITIWILHEIQiflnyffiflil'wflwflfiflfio“