INPUT AS RELATED TO OUTPUT 
33 
acreage of this single crop by hiring more labor and renting or buy- 
ing more land to the point where he will get the largest return for 
his management. Let us further assume that after a certain point 
the more land he manages the poorer care he is able to give it, so 
that the yields are slightly reduced, and the cost per bushel slightly 
increased, as shown below. 
Acres of wheat land managed 
Yield 
per acre 
(bushels) 
Cost per 
bushel 
Acres of wheat land managed 
Yield 
per acre 
(bushels) 
Cost per 
bushel 
25 
20 
20 
20 
19 
$0.71 
.71 
.71 
.72 
125 
18 
17 
15.5 
12 
$0. 735 
50 :... 
150 
.755 
75 
175... 
.78 
100 
200 
.82 
He would then be producing wheat at least cost per bushel if he 
grew not over 75 acres. Now if the wheat sold for $0.80 per bushel, 
he would make $135 by growing 75 acres, $152 by growing 100 acres, 
and $146 by growing 125 acres. Hence, with wheat at this price, 
the most profitable combination would be obtained by applying his 
management to 100 acres, even though the cost per bushel would be 
1 cent more at this combination. Similarly, if the wheat sold for 
$1 per bushel, he would make $435 by growing 75 acres but $625 
by growing 150 acres, in spite of the fact that the cost per bushel 
would be 4^ cents higher at the latter combination. 
In this case the farmer would make the greatest profit at a com- 
bination considerably less intensive than the least-cost combination. 
This would be possible only because he would be able to handle a 
sufficiently increased number of productive units to more than make 
up the difference in profit per unit. In any given case, how far it 
will pay to go in expanding the size of the enterprise will depend 
upon how much the gain from taking on additional acres, cows, or 
other units is offset by lowered efficiency in the whole production. 
In general, so long as there is no change in the size of an enterprise, 
as measured in physical terms — cows or acres — the most profitable 
combination can not be less intensive than the least-cost combination. 
But when there is change in the magnitude of the enterprise, this 
no longer holds true. Then the total profit from the enterprise must 
be considered, and the further complication of the effect on the entire 
combination of enterprises must be taken into account. 
FOE BEEF PRODUCTION 
The question of the most profitable combination is much more 
complicated in the case of fattening beef animals than in most agri- 
cultural production. The tables previously presented indicate the 
method of determining the combination which will probably cause 
the animals to put on flesh at the least cost per pound of gain. But 
it costs considerably more to put on a pound of gain than to produce 
a pound of " feeder stuff " ; the feeder must make his profit from 
the " spread " in price which he is able to receive on the weight of the 
whole animal. Since the final feeding is much more expensive per 
