comparison study link

Discussion in 'Sports Field Management' started by tnmtn, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. tnmtn

    tnmtn LawnSite Bronze Member
    from NE Tn.
    Posts: 1,017

    I was wondering if anyone here has a link to a good comparison study of the expenses and maintenance costs of an natural vs. synthetic sports field. if injury numbers are included that would be a benifit as well. i have found a few through a google search but wasn't sure if there is one that really stands out as better than the rest. I feel as many on here do that natural is better and would like to be able to better back it up or be proven wrong in this thinking. thanks in advance.
     
  2. jmoore16135

    jmoore16135 LawnSite Member
    Posts: 45

  3. Deltacare  LLC

    Deltacare LLC LawnSite Member
    Posts: 28

    There really aren't any great unbiased opinions. Costs for maintenance can be equal depending on your level of maintenance. Many people do nothing on their artificial field because they fall for the sales pitch. If maintained properly (according to those same manufacturer guidelines ironically), a synthetic field can have similar maintenance costs. Some injuries are more prevalent on artificial (rotational injuries in particular). Most trauma injuries are less severe on the newer synthetic fields, however, a synthetic which is not maintained can, over time, become harder than a soil field that is maintained properly (i.e. proper aeration). The entire subject is very cloudy and depends, like everything else, on the specifics of the field installation and maintenance. You can find "experts" on either side with great evidence showing their side is better. The one unequivocable fact is that synthetic will allow for more usage hours than natural. This will also shorten the field's lifespan greatly also. Anyway, don't expect to get a great answer and don't believe the ones that sound great. Good Luck!
     

Share This Page