Submitted by Thomas Gladstein, Greenwich 7th grader and member of Boy Scout Troop 35
I recently watched the webinar titled “Play It Safe: Artificial Turf vs. Grass Playing Fields,” which featured presentations by Susan Rudolph and Trey Rogers. From both of these individuals, I learned about the pros and cons of turf and natural grass. In my view, natural grass is the better option, and here’s why:
1. Cost-Effectiveness: Natural grass is significantly more cost-effective than turf. Over a 5-year period, the average cost of maintaining an acre of turf is $936,600, while natural grass costs $393,370 for a 2-acre field. Over 10 years, turf costs $1,394,480 for a 2-acre field, whereas natural grass costs $558,909. Additionally, disposing of old turf can cost up to $200,000.
Real grass field at Julian Curtiss School being enjoyed on Field Day. Photo: Leslie Yager
2. Environmental Impact: Turf acts as a heat sink, absorbing 25-55 degrees more heat than natural grass. An acre of turf can produce 55 metric tons of carbon per year, which would require over 1,800 trees to offset. In contrast, natural grass offsets 16 metric tons of carbon annually. Therefore, natural grass is more beneficial for reducing carbon emissions and mitigating heat.
3. Injury and Health Concerns: Turf is associated with higher injury rates compared to natural grass. Turf can exacerbate injuries and lead to more severe infections. This is because natural grass absorbs fluids like blood, sweat, and vomit, whereas these fluids pool on the plastic blades of turf. When someone gets injured on turf, the risk of infection increases due to the pooling of potentially contaminated liquids.
In conclusion, I believe natural grass is a superior choice over turf based on cost, environmental impact, and health considerations.