The Objective Function

The farmer's objective is to minimize the total cost of fertilizing. The total cost is the sum of the
individual costs of each type of fertilizer purchased. The objective function that represents total
cost is expressed as

Minimize Z = $6 x 1 + 3 x 2

Where:

$6 x 1 = cost of bags of Super-gro

$3 x 2 = cost of bags of Crop-quick

Model Constraints

The requirements for nitrogen and phosphate represent the constraints of the model. Each bag of
fertilizer contributes a number of pounds of nitrogen and phosphate to the field. The constraint
for nitrogen is

2 x 1 + 4 x 2 ≥16 lb.

Where:

2 x 1 = the nitrogen contribution (lb.) per bag of Super-gro

4 x 2 = the nitrogen contribution (lb.) per bag of Crop-quick

Rather than a   (less than or equal to) inequality, as used in the Beaver Creek Pottery Company

model, this constraint requires a ≥ (greater than or equal to) inequality. This is because the
nitrogen content for the field is a minimum requirement specifying that at least 16 pounds of
nitrogen be deposited on the farmer’s field. If a minimum cost solution results in more than 16
pounds of nitrogen on the field, that is acceptable; however, the amount cannot be less than 16
pounds.

The constraint for phosphate is constructed like the constraint for nitrogen:

4 x 1 + 3 x 2 ≥ 24 lb.

With this example we have shown two of the three types of linear programming model
constraints,   and   . The third type is an exact equality, =. This type specifies that a constraint
requirement must be exact. For example, if the farmer had said that the phosphate requirement
for the field was exactly 24 pounds, the constraint would have been

The three types of linear programming constraints are   , =, and   .

4 x 1 + 3 x 2 = 24 lb.

As in our maximization model, there are also non-negativity constraints in this problem to
indicate that negative bags of fertilizer cannot be purchased:

x 1 , x 2 

The complete model formulation for this minimization problem is

Graphical Solution of a Minimization Model

We follow the same basic steps in the graphical solution of a minimization model as in a
maximization model. The fertilizer example will be used to demonstrate the graphical solution of
a minimization model.

The first step is to graph the equations of the two model constraints, as shown in Figure 2.16.
Next, the feasible solution area is chosen , to reflect the   inequalities in the constraints, as
shown in Figure 2.17.

Figure 2.16. Constraint lines for fertilizer model

 [Page 50]
Figure 2.17. Feasible solution area
After the feasible solution area has been determined, the second step in the graphical solution
approach is to locate the optimal point. Recall that in a maximization problem, the optimal
solution is on the boundary of the feasible solution area that contains the point(s) farthest from
the origin. The optimal solution point in a minimization problem is also on the boundary of the
feasible solution area; however, the boundary contains the point(s) closest to the origin (zero
being the lowest cost possible).

The optimal solution of a minimization problem is at the extreme point closest to the origin .

As in a maximization problem, the optimal solution is located at one of the extreme points of the
boundary. In this case the corner points represent extremities in the boundary of the feasible
solution area that are closest to the origin. Figure 2.18 shows the three corner points A , B ,
and C and the objective function line.

As the objective function edges toward the origin, the last point it touches in the feasible solution
area is A . In other words, point A is the closest the objective function can get to the origin
without encompassing infeasible points. Thus, it corresponds to the lowest cost that can be
attained.

Figure 2.18. The optimal solution point

The final step in the graphical solution approach is to solve for the values of x 1 and x 2 at
point A . Because point A is on the x 2 axis, x 1 = 0; thus,
Given that the optimal solution is x 1 = 0, x 2 = 8, the minimum cost, Z , is

This means the farmer should not purchase any Super-gro but, instead, should purchase eight
bags of Crop-quick, at a total cost of $24.

Surplus Variables

Greater than or equal to constraints cannot be converted to equations by adding slack variables,
as with   constraints. Recall our fertilizer model, formulated as

Where
x 1 = bags of Super-gro fertilizer

x 2 = bags of Crop-quick fertilizer

Z = farmer's total cost ($) of purchasing fertilizer

Because this problem has   constraints as opposed to the   constraints of the Beaver Creek
Pottery Company maximization example, the constraints are converted to equations a little
differently.

A surplus variable is subtracted from a   constraint to convert it to an equation (=) .

Instead of adding a slack variable with a   constraint, we subtract a surplus variable . Whereas
a slack variable is added and reflects unused resources, a surplus variable is subtracted and
reflects the excess above a minimum resource requirement level. Like a slack variable, a surplus
variable is represented symbolically by s 1 and must be nonnegative.

For the nitrogen constraint, the subtraction of a surplus variable gives

A surplus variable represents an excess above a constraint requirement level .

2 x 1 + 4 x 2 s 1 = 16

The surplus variable s 1 transforms the nitrogen constraint into an equation.

As an example, consider the hypothetical solution

x 1 = 0

x 2 = 10

Substituting these values into the previous equation yields

In this equation s 1 can be interpreted as the extra amount of nitrogen above the minimum

requirement of 16 pounds that would be obtained by purchasing 10 bags of Crop-quick fertilizer.

In a similar manner, the constraint for phosphate is converted to an equation by subtracting a

surplus variable, s 2 :

4 x 1 + 3 x 2 s 2 = 24

Figure 2.19. Graph of the fertilizer example

As is the case with slack variables, surplus variables contribute nothing to the overall cost of a
model. For example, putting additional nitrogen or phosphate on the field will not affect the
farmer's cost; the only thing affecting cost is the number of bags of fertilizer purchased. As such,
the standard form of this linear programming model is summarized as