The discussion on productivity of organic agriculture and that of chemical farming is generally related to the rapidness of chemical farming in increasing yield to feed growing population and the heaviness of organic agriculture in labour input and the yield at the beginning of the process. Then, at short time, chemical farming seems to be more efficient than organic farming. But at long term, organic farming is more efficient, because the yield does not decline through time, and generally increases. The debate is then about the choice between short term efficient techniques (chemical farming) and long term efficient ones (organic ecological farming). The solution today is to develop intensive ecological farming; this conciliates high yield cropping, sustainability of production and ecosystem preservation; what we call ecosystem-based adaptation driven agriculture (EBA-driven agriculture).     

The organic agriculture versus high yield and intensive utilization are not black and white; there are trade offs. See a non-comprehensive list below.

1. Saved areas. High yield, intensive techniques preserve areas for high-value ecosystems, forests, and wetlands. Some of the intensive methods are as sustainable as the organic production, using less natural resources is their value.

2. There is no deficit of food or agricultural products globally. The abundance of food in a region and lack of resources in another one. Obesity and starvation exist at the same time. So, we cannot explain the agricultural sustainability globally.

3. Demand. There is a demand for organic food. Companies do not produce organic food for the health of the planet or the health of people. They produce organic food for satisfying a niche market and achieve a higher profit.

4. Purchasing power. The agricultural production is pulled by the demand. Nobody produces food for those who cannot pay, most people have their clear priority (cheapest food to survive, value for money, quality, etc. - some of the factors are perceived attributes), and some of them only want to eat organic food. The purchasing power what defines the production.

5. Environmental or health consciousness. These are the priorities I mentioned above. The personal choices depend on the income and the consciousness.

I am sure the comprehensive list is way longer. More efficient, higher yield, higher margin,  top value production, and sustainability are the goals of the agricultural development. The development is in line with the development of people's choices what depends on the wealth and knowledge.

We have earlier  also debated this issue on same platform. Organic agriculture could produce high yields at experimental sites. The full potential of organic agriculture in farmers field is yet to be realised . There could be some fields with high production but sustaining such high yields for a long time is another big challenge. Reallisticly organic agriculture besides benign from soil health and environment health , still a far away from reality when compared with conventional inorganic / synthetic inputs raised agriculture..

The biggest mistake we generally do is that we use same high yielding varieties for intensive and organic farming and expecting a similar result. Pattern of nutrient availability in most the system of cropping is different and thus their expected result is also different. A comparison of both the cropping method is given in the link below.

Moreover, to get a sustainable yield in the organic system, we need to work on breeding aspects to breed varieties purely for organic system. Currently, only five institutes internationally are working on it.

Article CAN HIGH YIELDING VARIETIES PERFORM SIMILARLY IN ORGANIC FARMS?

see file joined

Read all the answers above and found few important points 

Organic agriculture could produce higher yields at experimental sites but potential at farmers field is yet to realize. And probably farmer's field will never prodcue as much as experimental sites due to lack of nutrients in soil.

As also pointed above after a period of 3-4 years the produce from organic agriculture increases and gets stable but what we miss is that, even the highest produce from organic agriculture can never match the produce from chemical farming.

The main need for chemical farming is the increasing population which we need to feed. Though we also know, there is abundance food produced in the world to meet world demand but it is also correctly said that obesity and starvation exists parallely. Hence we always need abundance food, even if we have to waste some.

The population is increasing at such rate that we can never feed it through organic farming. The only way to do is chemical farming otherwise we would need to cut forests to increase cultivable land.

The best possible solution is to practise both the farming simultaneously. Chemical farming will ensure the demand of food. While organic farming which will increase its area gradually will ensure its adaption 50 years down the line. This will ensure the successful shift from chemical to organic.

So it's realistically low in organ agriculture without doubt...We need to judge the success through framers field only..

Benefits of organic agriculture can be attributed to soil organic matter and its nutrient content, however, farming is a nutrient-mining exercise, if the nutrients are not balanced it leads to nutrient degradation, hence the need to replace the mined nutrients. The higher the yield, the higher the mining. If the organic pools can replace all the mined nutrients then we can talk of sustainable system. If not, then you need to import nutrients in inorganic form (fertilizer), and this has been the practice. 

One thing is very sure, residual response of different crops under organic manures could be yet another very interesting issue to debate ..?

I think that most discussion above talking about annual crops and do take in consider the perennial crops which characters with a long productivity periods like Olive or date palm,Citrus ,and so on .Organic  farming in fruit crops characters with low annual productivity , but it keeps crop production stable for a long time compared with chemical fertilizer ed plants ,with less biennial bearing severity.So i think that organic farming was a good choice for these crops compared with chimical fertilizers.

In  this debate, two aspects need to be clarifies first. a) the definition of organic vs chemically based agriculture and where it is applied - crp, horticulture, livestock? b) the definition of productivity - just yield of final output? or total biomass ? and what about the net loss/gain in resource base? for example, leguminous crops fis nitrogen in the soil, so add to soil quality in addition to final output, while in other cases nitrogen uptake may be high and there may be depletion of nitrogen stock in the soil, so final output should be adjusted to reflect the loss. Definition of sustainable agriculture requires that these issues are addressed in the definitions before comparison is made. 

There will  be comparison of integrated soil fertility management , usually followed by and large  against organic manures/ compost ..and secondly the measurable crop productivity will be the economic value of the crop in terms of marketable productivity.

In organic production productivity is low. The higher price in the market should replace the backlog compared to conventional production.

I agree with a few comments here that propose the combined use of organic and chemical techniques. In view of burgeoning population and limited resources, we need ways of producing more while maintaining our resource base. There are various initiatives which combine organic and chemical techniques resulting in higher or equivalent productivity but lesser resource use.

One of these is, for cotton, "better cotton". My published articles in 2017 showed that these management practices are more efficient than high input agriculture. Also, the cotton productivity was equivalent while water, pesticide, and fertilizer use was significantly lesser in "Better Cotton". You can read it on following links.

Article Determinants and intensity of adoption of “better cotton” as...

Article Determinants and resource use efficiency of “better cotton”:...

Article Is ‘Better cotton’ better than conventional cotton in terms ...

I totally agree with your arguments, with this question why this arguments of high chemical farming emerged, we should discuss this question! And even nowadays GM food products are greatly distributed to the developing nations and we all know that once they will sell seeds and after this when the will people sufferer from disease they will sell the medicine....this is corporate colonialism!

• C:H:O is plants 96% taken from air, we humans are with such great superpowers in world failed to eat organic but succeed to eat Bullets and drink missiles or bombs, i suggest to invest on food research. Yes, we can find the way to supply these 4% N:P:K and trace elements organically to plant to uplift production, up to the mark of chemical fertilizer.
• with saying thanks to Allah for completing these 96%.