I think subsidize inputs is better. However, in Egypt they subsidize both inputs and yield for strategic crops.

I think subsidizing yield is better. With this concept, I believe management will be oriented to maximize production and productivity. Becouse better the management higher will be yield.

@Youssef, in my opinion subsidize the input is the better option because it helps in more adoption of the technology or better cultivar, increase in yield as well as increase in farmers income. In India both the system prevail.

I think inputs subsides are better because yield will be maximized in sustainable way.

in my opinion, subsidize inputs is better, because good cultivar, agricultural technology and good management will automatically bring higher yield and increase farmer income. In Tanzania both ways are used.

I think subsidize inputs is better. However, in Egypt they subsidize both inputs and yield for strategic crops.

I think input support is better.

Good question! Interesting

I think that subsidizing the inputs is better since good practices and good crop management will leads to higher yield

Subsidizing the inputs is better, because in one way or another it is a process for subsidizing yield.. In my opinion, the country must found a good strategies to support agriculture in both respects in a balanced manner. I think that our country did not actively support the agriculture sector, both in terms of inputs or yield

In my opinion, both types of subsidies are equally important for obtaining good production, the efficiency of both subsidies being directly related to a good crop management, as well as precise market strategies for the crops produced. Subsidizing inputs will offer the chance to expand and diversify crop types, and subsidizing yield would increase locally produced amounts of crops. Therefore, both types of subsidies would positively impact the agricultural sector, if they are coupled with efficient management techniques as well as well-determined marketing strategies. In my country, the governmental efforts are more oriented towards subsidizing yield, a strategy that is most of time counteracted by the lack of planning regarding the marketing of locally produced crops, especially when high production exceeds local demand.

In my opinion, input and yield are respectively related. They are both parts in one big cycle witch is agricultural economy and therefore state economy. You can't support one part and neglect the other and expect an economical growth. Hence, the government should make a balanced strategy to eliminate all the gaps in agricultural cycle and support in a well thought out manner all the sectors that need support. Unfortunately, agriculture is not the main interest in my country, the only aspect that concern our government is tobacco production other than that agriculture is facing many struggles on several levels.

Inputs subsidization leads to an increased yield. You treat diseases from their causes not from their symptoms. There its best to subsidize inputs

I think for developing countries both options should be available but for developed countries assured support price is required to balane any production crisis.

Both facility should be there for obtaining maximum profit.

The question you should be answering is what is the goal of the subsidy. Subsidising inputs, or some inputs leads to inefficient use of those inputs at the cost of inputs that actually might be beneficial in increasing production or profitability. If the goal is to increase production towards some goal such as food security, then subsidising yield is better, as producers will seek to maximise profit using a cost efficient combination of inputs.

For the case of Kenya they subsidise the inputs.. it's more aimed at increasing yields for food security rather than profit maximization.. The problem comes in where there are flaws due to corruption in the distribution of subsidised inputs and the targeted small holder farmers who form the majority of the population miss out on this essential inputs.

I am more in favor of the answer of Peter Tozer . Most of the times subsidizing the inputs reduces the efficiency of using them while subsidizing production make the growers put more efforts to increase their unit area production. however, in some cases, a balance between the two types of subsidizes will promote the development of the agricultural sector.

I agree with AMR Abdel-Mawgoud, you really need to know what the reason for the subsidy is, and sometimes a combination of both can work better, than one or the other, especially for internal sectoral development.

I think subsidizing output is more useful. Let's say that inputs are subsidized. Then for whatever reason (farmer's inefficiency and poor planning, erratic climate and weather issues, etc) the output is low. This has not served the original purposed it intended. However, it is better to wait for the output and provide subsidies proportional to the amount of output, good agricultural practices used, etc. this would positively reward farmers who are really interested and keen on improving their yields.

both are very important support , but the support factor is very necessary

Getting more details