32 
BULLETIN 1277, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
When milk sells at $2.10 per 100 pounds, $2.20, and $2.40, the annual 
profit per cow will be as shown below : 
Production per cow 
Total profit with milk selling 
for— 
$2.10 
$2.20 
$2.40 
6.000 pounds 
Loss. 
$7.00 
12.00 
16.20 
16.00 
13.20 
6.00 

$14. 00 
20.00 
25. 20 
26.00 
24.20 
18.00 
$12. 00 
7,000 pounds 
28.00 
8,000 pounds .. . _■______ 
36.00 
9,000 pounds 
43.20 
10,000 pounds 
46.00 
11,000 pounds 
46.20 
12,000 pounds... 
42.00 
With milk at $2.10 per 100 pounds, the greatest profit combination 
would evidently be the same as the least-cost combination — 9.000 
pounds per year. But if milk were worth $2.20, the greatest profit 
would be obtained by producing 10,000 pounds per cow: and if it 
were worth $2.40, by producing* 11,000 pounds per cow — even though 
at 11,000 pounds the cost per 100 pounds would be 6 cents higher 
than at the least-cost combination. 
As long as only variations in the output per cow are thus consid- 
ered, it is readily apparent that the greatest profit combination can 
not be a combination producing a smaller volume of output than the 
least-cost combination, for then both the number of units and the 
profit per unit would be less than at the least-cost combination. 
However, as has just been shown, it is possible to obtain the greatest 
profit at a combination considerably higher in cost per unit than the 
least-cost combination in those cases where the higher-cost combina- 
tion is accompanied by a volume enough larger than at the least-cost 
combination to offset the reduced profit per unit. 
The conclusion that as long as the number of productive units — 
cows, acres, hogs, etc. — is not changed, the greatest profit can not be 
obtained at a combination less intensive (that is, producing fewer 
units of output per cow or acre, etc.) than the least-cost combination, 
is of particular value with regard to the practical use to be made 
of the analysis. Farmers operating with combinations lower in 
intensity of production than the least-cost combination are frequently 
receiving much reduced returns because they produce only a small 
number of units at a low profit per unit. They can not fail to gain 
by increasing the intensity of their production to at least the point 
of least cost if they can do so without decreasing the size of the 
enterprise as measured by number of cows or other productive units. 
How far it will pay to increase intensity beyond the point of least 
cost will depend upon how much increased volume of production 
offsets decreased profits per unit. 
FOR VARIATIONS IN PEODTJCTIVE UNITS PEB MAN 
So far, the discussion has covered the varying of the output per 
cow or per acre. The greatest-profit combination may also be con- 
sidered with regard to varying the number of cows or acres per man. 
This may be illustrated for the case of a man growing a single crop, 
such as wheat. Let us assume that he is in position to expand his 
