The CODOH Revisionist Forum

37.) Letter from Heinrich Müller to Martin Luther of 28 February 1942⤵
38.) Bill of F. Reichelt Aktiengesellschaft Litzmannstadt 9 March 1942 ⤵
39.) Bill of Kopernikus-Apotheke of 31 March 1942⤵
40.) Letter of Otto Luchterhandt to Josef Hämmerle of 23 May 1942⤵
41.) Letter of Schilbach to the bookkeeping department of 26 May 1942⤵
42.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 28 May 1942⤵
43.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 28 May 1942⤵
44.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 25 June 1942⤵
45.) Letter from Otto Luchterhand to the Purchase Department of 27 June 1942⤵
46.) Letter from Otto Luchterhandt to the Purchase Department of 30 June 1942⤵
47.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 30 June 1942⤵
48.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 1 July 1942⤵
49.) Letter from Otto Luchterhandt to the Warehouse Administration of 7 July 1942⤵
50.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 7 July 1942⤵
51.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 7 July 1942⤵
52.) Memo of Josef Hämmerle of 7 July 1942:⤵
53.) Memo of Otto Luchterhandt of 8 July 1942⤵
54.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 9 July 1942⤵
55.) Radio message from Alexander Fick to the SS-Cavalry Brigade of 15 July 1942⤵
56.) Letter of Hans Biebow to the Elder of the Jews of 16 July 1942⤵
57.) Certification of Heinrich Schwindt of 21 July 1942⤵
58.) Letter from Josef Hämmerle to Schilbach of 7 August 1942⤵
59.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 11 August 1942⤵
60.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 11 August 1942⤵
61.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 4 September 1942⤵
62.) Travel permit from Auschwitz to Litzmannstadt of 15 September 1942⤵
63.) Travel report of Walther Dejaco of 17 September 1942⤵
64.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 18 September 1942⤵
65.) Bill of Herm. Brüggemann, Bremen of 2 October 1942⤵
66.) Bill of Lodz Ghetto Administration of 3 October 1942⤵
67.) Cash receipt order for a purchase of Julius Bauer of 6 October 1942⤵
68.) Cash receipt order for a purchase of Franz Halle of 6 October 1942⤵
69.) Receipt of the Lodz Ghetto Administration for Paul Blobel of 8 October 1942⤵
70.) Bill of Motoren Heyne of 2 November 1942⤵
71.) Letter of Hans Bothmann to the Lodz Ghetto Administration of 14 November 1942⤵
72.) Letter from Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe to Hans Biebow of 7 December 1942⤵
73.) Letter from Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe to Schramml of 15 December 1942⤵
74.) Bill of Herm. Brüggemann and shipment notification of 14 January 1943⤵
75.) Letter of Paul Blobel to Hans Biebow of 3 February 1943⤵
76.) Letter of Dresdner Bank to Stapo Lodz of 4 February 1943⤵
77.) Bill of Herm. Brüggemann, Bremen of 9 February 1943⤵
78.) Letter of Hans Biebow to Günther Fuchs of 1 March 1943⤵
79.) Receipt for a purchase of Wilhelm Tempel of 1 April 1943⤵
80.) Bill of the Lodz Ghetto Administration of 8 April 1943⤵
81.) Bill and repair report of Dr. Kiesgen & Co. of 8 April 1943⤵
82.) Receipt of the Lodz Ghetto Administration for Paul Blobel of 9 April 1943⤵
83.) Letter from Hans Biebow to Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe of 16 April 1943⤵
84.) Letter from Hans Biebow to Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe of 16 April 1943⤵
85.) Letter from Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe to Hans Biebow of 22 April 1943⤵
86.) Letter from Hans Biebow to Erich Czarnulla of 22 April 1943⤵
87.) Letter of Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe to Alfons Rosse of 11 May 1943⤵
88.) Telex from Forschungsstelle A-Litzmannstadt of 22 June 1943⤵

Document	Lime (kg)
Doc 38		800
Doc 39		1641
Doc 40 		17300 (50 barrels)
Doc 41/42	6574 (19 barrels)
Doc 43		10360
Doc 46		1730 (5 barrels)
Doc 47		356
Doc 50		13000
Doc 51		1740 (then declined per Doc 53)
Doc 54		2784

TOTAL (exclude declined 1740):	54,545 kg chlorinated lime
Corpses Implied (at 6 kg lime / corpse): 9,090 corpses

Chlorinated Lime for Sanitizing Mammalian Biomass in Soil Burial: Estimation & Guidelines

1. Purpose

Estimate the quantity of chlorinated lime (bleaching powder / Chlorkalk / Ca(OCl)₂·Ca(OH)₂·CaCl₂ mixture) needed to effectively sanitize ~55 kg of mammalian carcass biomass buried in soil, applicable across mammal species (deer, livestock, etc.). Also addresses scaling to mass grave scenarios.

2. Chemical Identity

Chlorinated lime (bleaching powder) is a white powder mixture of calcium hypochlorite, calcium chloride, and calcium hydroxide, typically containing 20–35% available chlorine. It is known by multiple names across languages and contexts:

Code: Select all

| Name                   | Language/Context                |
| ---------------------- | ------------------------------- |
| Chlorinated lime       | English (general)               |
| Bleaching powder       | English (commercial)            |
| Chlorkalk / Bleichkalk | German                          |
| Chloride of lime       | English (historical/veterinary) |

WHO composition specification:

"Chlorinated lime or bleaching powder is a white powder which is a mixture of calcium hydroxide, calcium chloride and calcium hypochlorite. It typically contains 20 to 35 per cent available chlorine."

Source: WHO calcium hypochlorite fact sheet — https://www.oxfamwash.org/wp-content/uploads/WHO-calcium-hypochlorite-fs2-19.pdf

German encyclopedic confirmation:

"Chlorkalk (auch Bleichkalk) ist ein technisches Gemisch aus meist 35% Calciumhypochlorit Ca(OCl)₂, 30% Calciumchlorid CaCl₂ und 13% Calciumhydroxid Ca(OH)₂."

Source: https://biancahoegel.de/material/werkstoffe/halogenide/chlor/chlorkalk.html

Critical Distinction: Chlorinated Lime ≠ Quicklime/Slaked Lime

Code: Select all

| Property         | Quicklime (CaO) / Slaked Lime (Ca(OH)₂) | Chlorinated Lime (Bleaching Powder)        |
| ---------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |
| Active chlorine  | None                                    | ~20–35%                                    |
| Bulk composition | Pure CaO or Ca(OH)₂                     | Mixture: Ca(OCl)₂ + CaCl₂ + Ca(OH)₂        |
| Primary action   | pH elevation (12.4), desiccation        | pH elevation + oxidizing disinfection      |
| Stability        | Stable                                  | Degrades over time (loses active chlorine) |

MSF explicitly warns: "Beware of confusion with chlorinated lime which is a source of chlorine and not a type of lime."

Source: MSF Unicat — https://www.unicat.msf.org/cat/product/11390

3. Core Calculation

Primary Basis: MSF / IFRC 1:10 Weight Ratio

Both Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the International Federation of Red Cross / Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) publish the same quantitative guideline for burial of dead bodies:

"If burial at a depth of more than 1 metre is not possible, spread lime at the bottom of the grave and over the body (1 kg of lime per 10 kg of body weight)."

Sources:

• MSF Unicat — LIME slaked, 100kg, powder: https://www.unicat.msf.org/cat/product/11390
• IFRC Standard Products Catalogue — Quick lime: https://itemscatalogue.redcross.int/wash--6/water--30/water-treatment-products--130/quick-lime--WCHPLIME02.aspx

Applied to 55 kg (common estimate for 'Holocaust corpses'):

55 kg ÷ 10 = 5.5 kg ≈ 5–6 kg chlorinated lime

Validation of Extrapolation to Chlorinated Lime

The MSF/IFRC 1:10 ratio is specified for quicklime/slaked lime (CaO / Ca(OH)₂), not chlorinated lime. Extrapolation to chlorinated lime is justified by three lines of evidence:

1. Compositional overlap (WHO, 2019): Chlorinated lime's bulk mass is Ca(OH)₂ — the same compound as slaked lime — providing the same alkaline disinfection mechanism (pH 12.4) plus additional oxidizing chlorine action. Chlorinated lime should therefore be at least as effective as slaked lime by weight.

• Source: https://www.oxfamwash.org/wp-content/uploads/WHO-calcium-hypochlorite-fs2-19.pdf

2. Cross-lime-type weight-equivalence precedent (Schotsmans et al.): Peer-reviewed forensic taphonomy study applied identical weights (12.5 kg) of hydrated lime and quicklime to pig carcasses as human analogues, establishing precedent for equivalent weight dosing across different lime types.

• Source: https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/107339/1/Schotsmans_Lime_FSI-Postprint%20auteur.pdf

3. Dual-mechanism advantage over pure calcium hypochlorite: An E3S Conferences study (2021) found pure calcium hypochlorite less effective than quicklime at equivalent layer thickness in poultry burial pits. However, chlorinated lime is not pure calcium hypochlorite — it retains the substantial Ca(OH)₂ alkaline component, providing dual disinfection (alkaline + oxidative). The E3S study's negative finding is therefore not directly applicable.

• Source: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2021/21/e3sconf_aeecs2021_02008.pdf

Caveat: No published study directly compares chlorinated lime to slaked lime at equivalent weight ratios for carcass disinfection in burial. The 1:10 extrapolation is the best-supported estimate available but should be treated as a conservative lower bound. The upper range (8–11 kg, or doubled dosing) is more defensible for high-stakes applications.

4. Tiered Estimate Table (Single Carcass, 55 kg)

Code: Select all

| Scenario                                              | Estimated Chlorinated Lime              | Rationale / Source                                                                                        |
| ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Standard burial (>1 m depth), non-infectious          | ~5–6 kg                                 | MSF/IFRC 1:10 ratio extrapolated                                                                          |
| Shallow burial (<1 m) or high-risk infectious disease | ~8–11 kg                                | MSF specifies full 1:10 dosing when burial depth >1 m is not achievable; doubled for infectious scenarios |
| Layer-based alternative                               | 2–5 cm layer at pit bottom + on carcass | Indian veterinary guidelines specify 5 cm lime layer at bottom and over carcass (no weight ratio given)   |

5. Scaling to Mass Graves

The 1:10 Ratio Scales Linearly with Total Biomass

The ratio is formulated per unit body weight, not "per grave." For 100 corpses at 55 kg each (5,500 kg total biomass):

5,500 kg ÷ 10 = 550 kg chlorinated lime (minimum)

Why "Sharing" Does Not Reduce the Requirement

Chlorine demand is a stoichiometric relationship — proportional to total organic matter, not to surface area or grave count. Each kg of biomass generates its own chemical demand that must be independently satisfied, regardless of proximity to other bodies.

"The amount of chlorine consumed to complete these reactions is called the 'chlorine demand' of the water. Only after the chlorine demand of the water is met, additional chlorine then forms [free residual for disinfection]."

Source: MDPI (2020) — https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/5/1506

Historical Practice Confirms Per-Body Dosing

The 1855 Benabbio cholera cemetery (Tuscany) documented the health authority regulation:

"To lay at least one 'staio' (24.36 litres) of strong lime on each body."

Even in double burials, each body received its own lime layer above and below — no quantity discount for shared graves.

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41636-023-00437-9

Why Mass Graves May Actually Need MORE Per kg

Code: Select all

| Factor                      | Explanation                                                                                                                        |
| --------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Reduced surface contact     | Interior bodies have less direct contact with lime; proper treatment requires interleaved layers between body tiers                |
| Anaerobic conditions        | Deeper, more compacted mass graves prolong pathogen viability; lime must maintain activity longer                                  |
| Decomposition fluid pooling | Concentrated organic-rich fluids at the grave bottom create high local chlorine demand                                             |
| Need for interleaved layers | Indian veterinary guidelines specify lime at bottom AND over each carcass — multiple stacked carcasses require layers between each |

Source (Indian guidelines): https://www.pashudhanpraharee.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/GUIDELINES-ON-DISPOSAL-OF-ANIMAL-CARCASS-AND-DISINFECTION-IN-INDIA.pdf

Mass Grave Scaling Summary

Code: Select all

| Scenario                             | 55 kg (single) | 5,500 kg (100 × 55 kg)               | Scaling                                       |
| ------------------------------------ | -------------- | ------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------- |
| Weight-based 1:10 (MSF/IFRC)         | ~5.5 kg        | ~550 kg                              | Linear                                        |
| Weight-based, doubled for infectious | ~11 kg         | ~1,100 kg                            | Linear                                        |
| Layer-based 5 cm (Indian vet.)       | ~5–6 kg        | ~350–550 kg (pit geometry dependent) | Possibly sub-linear (wide, shallow pits only) |
| With interleaved body layers         | ~5.5 kg        | ~550–750 kg                          | Linear to super-linear                        |

The One Exception: Layer-Based Dosing in Wide, Shallow Pits

If dosing by layer thickness (5 cm at bottom and top, per Indian veterinary guidelines) rather than weight, a wide, shallow mass grave has less total surface area than 100 individual pits — suggesting possible sub-linear scaling. However:

• This assumes the 5 cm layer is sufficient regardless of the depth of bodies below it
• It ignores the chlorine demand from interior bodies
• The Indian guidelines assume single-carcass pits, not stacked

WEDC (Loughborough University) cautions:

"In epidemic situations, 'disinfection' with lime (or chloride of lime) is often promoted. This is largely superficial, does little to remove infectious pathogens."

Source: https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/books/Emergency_Sanitation_-_Ch_09.pdf

6. Application Method

1. Sprinkle ~2.5–3 kg at the bottom of the pit before placing biomass
2. Sprinkle ~2.5–3 kg on top of the biomass before covering with soil
3. Cover with ≥1–2 m of soil (Indian guidelines: ≥2 m / 6 ft)
4. Do not place chlorinated lime directly on carcasses in wet conditions — it can slow or prevent decomposition; apply a soil buffer layer first
5. For multiple carcasses in one pit: apply interleaved lime layers between each carcass tier

7. Applicability Across Species

The dosing approach is weight-based, not species-based. The 1:10 ratio applies across:

• Livestock (cattle, pigs, sheep, equines) — confirmed by Indian veterinary guidelines
• Wildlife (deer, feral swine) — confirmed by USDA APHIS study
• Human remains — confirmed by MSF/IFRC/Oxfam guidelines

Species-specific factors that may alter the protocol: suspected disease (anthrax, CWD, rabies, ASF, FMD), carcass size/density, soil type (clay preferred), groundwater proximity, and local regulatory requirements.

8. Supporting Context

Oxfam Cholera Guidelines — Layer-Based Approach

Oxfam recommends placing chlorinated lime at the bottom of the grave and on top of the body before closing, but specifies no quantity — a layer-based approach rather than weight-based.

Source: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/237172/ml-cholera-guidelines-preparedness-prevention-and-control-030512-en.pdf

WHO/PAHO — Lime Is Unnecessary for Non-Infectious Deaths

WHO states: "Lime powder does not hasten decomposition and, since dead bodies are generally not an infectious risk to the public, disinfectant is not needed." This applies to disaster victims who died of trauma — not to infectious disease scenarios.

Sources:

• WHO Q&A — Management of dead bodies: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/emergencies-management-of-dead-bodies
• WHO/ICRC/IFRC joint statement (2023): https://www.who.int/news/item/15-09-2023-dead-bodies-from-natural-disasters-and-conflict-do-not-generally-pose-health-risks--red-cross-and-who-say
• PAHO literature review (Morgan, 2004): https://scielosp.org/pdf/rpsp/2004.v15n5/307-312/en

USDA APHIS — Lime as Scavenger Deterrent (Stopgap)

USDA APHIS study found hydrated lime delayed scavenging from a median of 1 day (untreated) to 6 days (lime-treated). Turkey vultures, coyotes, raccoons, and corvids were primary scavengers. Authors note lime is a "stop-gap measure," not a replacement for carcass removal.

Source: Bowden et al. (2023), Journal of Wildlife Diseases 59(1):49–55 — https://doi.org/10.7589/jwd-d-22-00061 | Full text: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3640&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

Japanese Study — Ca(OH)₂ Disinfection Mechanism

2021 Japanese study confirms Ca(OH)₂'s disinfecting action requires 15–20% water content (w/w) to activate, with pH 12.4 as the active disinfection threshold. Effect lasts only ~2–4 weeks under field conditions before carbonation to CaCO₃. Since chlorinated lime contains substantial Ca(OH)₂, it inherits this mechanism plus the added oxidizing action of chlorine, which acts independently of water content via direct oxidation of microbial cell walls.

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8041792/

9. Historical Data Point — Chelmno (1942)

A surviving invoice dated March 9, 1942 from F. Reichelt AG (Litzmannstadt/Łódź pharmaceutical company) documents an order of:

"8 Fass à 100 kg Chlorkalk" (800 kg total)

...supplied to Chelmno extermination camp for "desinfecting the mass grave in the forest camp."

Source: https://holocausthistory.site/1942-03-08-invoice-for-8-barrels-of-100-kg-chlorinated-lime-for-chelmno-extermination-camp/

This confirms:

1. "Chlorkalk" is chemically identical to the chlorinated lime discussed throughout this document.
2. Nazi authorities treated chlorinated lime as functionally interchangeable with lime for burial disinfection — consistent with the compositional overlap (both contain Ca(OH)₂) identified in Section 2.
3. The order provides a real-world (if horrific) data point on chlorinated lime quantities ordered for mass burial disinfection. The total biomass in the mass graves was vastly larger than 55 kg, and the 800 kg ordered is consistent with linear scaling at a dose below the MSF/IFRC 1:10 ratio — likely reflecting the "superficial" application that WEDC cautions about.

Historical context sources:

• USHMM — Chelmno: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/chelmno
• Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland (1946): https://phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpol8.htm

10. Key Caveats

1. No published standard exists for chlorinated lime dosed by weight of biomass in burial. The 5–6 kg estimate is extrapolated from the MSF/IFRC lime ratio, justified by compositional overlap (Section 3).
2. Chlorinated lime ≠ quicklime/slaked lime but contains substantial Ca(OH)₂, providing the same alkaline mechanism plus additional oxidizing chlorine action.
3. The 1:10 ratio scales linearly with total biomass — there is no "economy of scale" for mass graves. If anything, mass graves may require more per kg due to reduced surface contact, anaerobic conditions, and decomposition fluid pooling (Section 5).
4. Effectiveness decreases with organic load — chlorine is consumed reacting with organic matter before reaching pathogens.
5. Fresh product is essential — bleaching powder loses active chlorine over time; old stock may require 2–3× the amount.

On WW2 German Quantities Used

"2 Hand width" (covering layer):

"Jede Grube soll tief sein, nicht überfüllt, 2 Hand breit mit Kalk, Kohle oder Asche bedeckt und mit 2 m Erde fest gestopft werden"
(Each pit should be deep, not overfilled, covered with a layer of lime, charcoal, or ash two hand-widths thick and packed tight with 2 meters of soil.)

Source: Brockhaus Konversationslexikon, 14th ed. (1894–1896), Vol. 2, entry "Bestattung (der Toten)", p. 890.
https://www.retrobibliothek.de/retrobib/seite.html?id=122204

Simple calculation for approximate kg of chlorinated lime per m²:

Volume = 1 m2 × 0.15–0.20 m = 0.15–0.20 m3

Weight = 0.15–0.20 m3 × 500 kg / m3 = 75–100 kg

A "2 hand-width" (15–20 cm) covering of chlorinated lime over 1 m² = ~75–100 kg (useful in calculations of lime-to-corpse burial ratios).

Chlorinated lime weight by volume sources:

• PBA Malaysia (Calcium Hypochlorite [Bleaching Powder]): https://pba.com.my/pdf/specifications/chemical/Chemical-Calcium-Hypochlorite-Rev00.pdf
• Supreme Petrochemicals, India (Bleaching Powder [chlorinated lime]): https://www.supremepetrochemicals.com/products/bleaching-powder

Should "Einbetten" (embed) corpses in lime (suggests layering):

"Von Desinfektionsmitteln könnte höchstens Kalk, in den die Leichen einzubetten sind, in Betracht kommen."
("Of disinfectants, at most lime— in which the bodies are to be embedded—might be considered.")

Source: Kriegssanitätsordnung (D.V.E. Nr. 21, 1907), as quoted in the encyclopedia entry "Schlachtfelder."
https://www.elexikon.ch/Schlachtfelder

This approach is reflected by the fact of multiple layers of lime in known German mass graves (e.g. Reinhardt camps).

Overall estimate:

Given packing density P (corpses/m³), burial depth D (m), and a conservative estimate of 1 layer of chlorinated lime per 2m burial depth, here is the estimated kg of Chlorkalk per corpse:

Code: Select all

| P (corpses/m³) | D (m) | P x D | C-Lime per corpse per layer | Probable layers (cons.) | C-Lime to Corpse (55 kg) Ratio |
| -------------- | ----- | ----- | --------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------ |
| 3              | 2     | 6     | 12.5                        | 1                       | 23%                            |
| 4              | 2     | 8     | 9.4                         | 1                       | 17%                            |
| 5              | 2     | 10    | 7.5                         | 1                       | 14%                            |
| 3              | 3     | 9     | 8.3                         | 1.5                     | 23%                            |
| 4              | 3     | 12    | 6.3                         | 1.5                     | 17%                            |
| 5              | 3     | 15    | 5                           | 1.5                     | 14%                            |
| 5              | 4     | 20    | 3.8                         | 2                       | 14%                            |
| 5              | 5     | 25    | 3                           | 2.5                     | 14%                            |
| 8              | 3     | 24    | 3.1                         | 1.5                     | 8%                             |
| 8              | 5     | 40    | 1.9                         | 2.5                     | 9%                             |

Overall, even with conservative estimates (i.e. 75kg Chlorkalk/layer, 0.5 probable layers per m³) the ratio with German knowledge of the WW2 period is higher than 10:1 (the modern standard) for most plausible burial configurations.

"Od piątku zaczęto polewać groby chlorkiem, gdyż czuło się silny odór rozkładających się ciał."
(Beginning on Friday, we started to pour/flood chloride on the graves because of the strong odor from the decomposing bodies.)

During archaeological drilling in 2003 at mass grave #1, an "active substance destroying rubber gloves" (czynną substancję niszczącą gumowe rękawiczki) was observed in the soil. The substance was not analyzed further.

"24 marca: zapłata w wysokości 7,98 RM za 150 sztuk okólnika Urzędu Zdrowia Rzeszy (Reichsgesundheitsamt) na temat walki z tyfusem"
(March 24: payment of 7.98 RM for 150 copies of the Reich Health Office (Reichsgesundheitsamt) circular on combating typhus)

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 9:41 pm Historical Practice Confirms Per-Body Dosing

The 1855 Benabbio cholera cemetery (Tuscany) documented the health authority regulation:

"To lay at least one 'staio' (24.36 litres) of strong lime on each body."

Abortgrube: Kalkmilch (1 Teil auf 4 Teile Inhalt), Chlorkalk (1 Teil auf 10 Teile), Caporit in Substanz (2 Teile auf 1000 Teile Grubeninhalt).

date         kg
09.03.42        800
31.03.42      1,641
21.05.42        356
26.05.42      6,574
28.05.42     10,360
26.06.42     13,000
01.07.42      2,780
04.07.42      1,740   (the lot I flagged as declined, Doc. 53)
Sum         ~37,250 kg