The University of Wisconsin's compared the following products:

Chickity Doo Doo (5-3-2.5)
Sustane (8-2-4)
Milorganite (6-2-0)
Nutripel (5-4-0)
NaturalOrigins (12-1-12)
NaturalOrigins (8-2-6)
Scotts Turf Builder (29-2-4)

See linked document, the organic part starts on page 7 of the file.
2011 Wisconsin Turfgrass Research Reports

Hightlights of the report:

Professional and consumer interest in organic turfgrass management is growing rapidly. There are
many different organic products on the market but very little data with which to compare products.
This trial is an attempt to gather data on the efficacy of a range of organic fertilizers. This
information will be useful to turfgrass professionals, consumers, and organic fertilizer companies
for promoting their products.

One important source of the differences among the treatments is the variability that can occur from
batch to batch with manure-based products. The labeling process requires that the guaranteed
analysis be reported, as such it is possible and actually very likely that a product may contain
significantly more nitrogen than is stated on the label. A small variation away from the target (i.e.
5.5% N on a label claiming 4.0% N) can create large differences in nitrogen application to the plots.

The NaturalOrigins products consistently
out-performed all other organic treatments in color, quality, and clipping yield

None of the fertilizer treatments affected soil P or K levels compared to the non-fertilized control

The report has lots of cool stuff in it, check it out

Nice. What is Natural Origins? Can't seem to find any information about them online.

I don't think your going to be finding it locally anytime soon. The most I could find was the below, and it almost looks like they're a "private label" custom packager. It also looks like they might be pretty focused on golf courses...

NaturalOrigins Web Site

Ok, let's ask this...

Most on this forum have noticed that their organic lawn that was fed by such staples as Milorganite turned out a better lawn than any Scott's 4 step program over the long run. This study claims that Scotts turned out a better lawn than Milorganite. (Quality ratings were higher than Milorganite in the study)

However, I don't really believe the article on duration. For instance, you fertilize with Scotts and you get an almost immediate green but it doesn't last as long because of the quick nitrogen. Contrast that to using Milorganite and it gets green over time and stays green longer. Has this been your experience as well?

It is a tough call. Most on here use Milorganite way more than 4x per year and of course get way better results. Try doing that with synthetic and you could run into problems such as disease and thatch.

DJG9282 wrote:Most on this forum have noticed that their organic lawn that was fed by such staples as Milorganite turned out a better lawn than any Scott's 4 step program over the long run. This study claims that Scotts turned out a better lawn than Milorganite. (Quality ratings were higher than Milorganite in the study)

I think the too big factors with Milorganite and the study are
1) The study used a different formula of Milorganite. It is the 6-2-0 formula sold it 50 pound bags targeted to golf courses.
2) They only used 3 pounds of nitrogen for the entire season. I think that is a bare minimum to maintain quality. The study did not put the turfgrass in a situation to succeed, just survive. That kind of "bare minimum, lowest cost" is the philosophy of the program as evident in my soil analysis.

To me that kind of study is simply a good start.

I would imagine that the soil in question was soil that had been used in turf trials in the past and so had a chemical fertilizer background. To me, a one season trial where they compare the organic fertilizers to a Scotts chemical fertilizer isn't much of a test. Run the same test for 2 or 3 years, and you might start seeing some improvements. Or, put out a yard of good compost at the start on the areas in the organic test.

Getting and establishing a healthy, biologically active soil that is a self maintaining eco-system doesn't happen in a few months.

But, its a good start and it would be interesting to see what each organic fertilizer did compared to others over a period of years.

Oh, and one more thing, in my yard that would never happen because I rotate different types of organic fertilers with the expectation that you are more likely to give the soil the balance it needs by using different products (like, for instance, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, soybean meal and some of the commercial organic products occasionally).