LAVA SAND – HADACOL FOR YOUR SOIL
[Why did you name your miracle tonic Hadacol, Colonel LeBlanc? "Well, I hadda call it something," he replied.] Don’t feel too bad if you’ve bought into the hype about lava sand as a miracle product for Texas clay-based soils. The "Dirt Doctor," John Howard Garrett, wages a relentless campaign to promote the sale of lava sand. And, like many such campaigns, this one is based on claims that are difficult, if not impossible for the average gardener to verify. But these claims can and have been tested. And here are the results.But first, what is lava sand? As produced and distributed by Twin Mountain Rock Company of Des Moines, New Mexico, lava sand is crushed scoria, a reddish brown to black volcanic slag. It has a vesicular texture; that is to say, it’s full of holes. But it isn’t permeable. Those holes represent individual, isolated gas bubbles in the original molten rock and aren’t interconnected, one with another. (You can verify that yourself by trying to blow into or through a larger piece of decorative lava rock.) Therefore, particles of lava sand cannot absorb water.
Over the past several years, the "Dirt Doctor" has claimed various attributes for lava sand as a soil amendment or additive. At one time or another, he has said:
(1) it provides an abundance of plant nutrients,
(2) it has a high cation exchange capacity,
(3) it has great water-holding capacity, and
(4) it has a high level of paramagnetic energy, which somehow acts as a powerful plant-growth stimulant and reduces pest problems.
In addition, he has said that it possesses all these wonderful characteristics even though it has an alkaline pH of 8.3 and contains no iron, whatsoever.
For anyone who cares to know the truth, these claims are nonsense and have been completely de-bunked. But, continuing the lie, he repeated the last three of these attributes as recently as the May, 2002, issue of his monthly club bulletin, The Dirt Doctor's Dirt.
Plant Nutrients and pH: Even the "Dirt Doctor" now admits that lava sand is completely insoluble and, therefore, chemically inert. Hence, it provides no plant nutrients at all. But that raises a couple of questions.
Since pH is normally measured in an aqueous solution, and lava sand is not soluble in water, how was its pH determined? (Or was it?)
And, since lava sand is now known to be insoluble and inert, why does the "Dirt Doctor" recommend applying additional amounts to the soil each and every year? What happens to it? Where does it go?
A suspicious person might conclude that his only real purpose is to generate more sales of lava sand. (And that could lead to the obvious conclusion that he must be making money out of such sales. But that wouldn't be either ethical or moral, would it?)
Cation Exchange Capacity: According to the supplier, Twin Mountain Rock Company, lava sand has a negligible cation exchange capacity (CEC) of only 4.0 milliequivalents (meq) per 100 grams. Therefore, lava sand holds essentially no nutrient cations (potassium, iron, magnesium, ammonium, etc.) on its surfaces. In contrast, the natural smectite clay in Dallas-area soils has a CEC of 80 to 100 meq per 100 grams. And colloidal organic humus typically has a CEC of 180 meq per 100 grams, or greater.
Water-Holding Capacity: Lava sand fares no better with respect to its water-holding capacity. In an independent laboratory test, lava sand adsorbed water equal to 45 percent of its dry weight, which agrees quite well with the 40 percent reported by Twin Mountain Rock Company. But, in the same test, fine-screened compost adsorbed 160 percent of its dry weight, and smectite clay adsorbed more than 250 percent.
Furthermore, the sample of lava sand dried out completely in less than a day and a half (33 hours); whereas, both the compost and the clay, though 90 percent dry after 4 or 5 days, required more than a week to dry out completely.
Even so, the "Dirt Doctor" continues to proclaim, "Lava sand holds just the right amount of water in the soil -- and for even longer than organic matter, in some cases." Or, even more absurbly, he cautions, "If you put too much, lava sand holds so much water it'll cause a problem."
Of course, all of this contradicts what he and his mentor expressed on Sunday, February 28, 1999. As a guest on the "Dirt Doctor's" radio program, Malcolm Beck said, "It's not so much it (lava sand) holds water; it builds up the stress resistance in the plant, so it doesn't need so much water." To which, the "Dirt Doctor," replied, "That's right."
Paramagnetic Energy: Contrary to all claims, lava sand has absolutely no "paramagnetic energy" (whether or not that would be of any value to a gardener) simply because there is no such thing. To say that it does and that water-holding capacity is somehow related to this "paramagnetic energy" is, at best, an example of scientific illiteracy.
Yet, during his radio program on April 8, 2000, he insisted, "There's a direct relationship between the paramagnetism of these volcanic materials and the water-holding capacity of the soil."
But, aparently, it does more than that, according to the "Doctor of Dirt." In the November, 2000, issue of The Dirt Doctor's Dirt, he wrote, "Paramagnetism indirectly effects [sic] the positive uptake of nutrients which results in the production of sugars or complex carbohydrates."
And, on July 30, 2000, he said, "Paramagnetism, as it relates to volcanic materials, is not taught about in universities. To find out about it you have to go to Phil Callahan's books. It's a form of energy measured in cgs units. It's how rocks are attracted to a magnet."
Of course, in addition to all that, Dr. Phillip Callahan has also written that paramagnetism is the mysterious force responsible for the powers of levitation possessed by ancient wizards and shamans.
How ignorant, even ludicrous, such statements are will quickly become obvious if you refer to any one of several popular physics textbooks, dictionaries, or handbooks, There, you'll find that paramagnetism is not a force or any form of energy and has nothing whatever to do with water-holding capacity. It’s simply a common electromagnetic property of all substances -- indicating what physicists more commonly refer to as a positive magnetic susceptibility. (Diamagnetism indicates a negative magnetic susceptibility.)
Furthermore, a discussion of paramagnetism is invariably included in college-level electricity and magnetism courses. (For technical definitions of paramagnetism and magnetic susceptibility, see the section toward the bottom of this page.)
No data for the paramagnetism of lava sand, as such, are reported in the scientific literature because lava sand is a type of rock, not a mineral. But an estimate of its properties can be made from its mineral content.
According to an x-ray diffraction analysis, lava sand is 80 to 85 percent albite and diopside (or its cousin, augite). These are aluminosilicate minerals that contain sodium, calcium, magnesium and iron and are known to be mildly diamagnetic; that is, they each have a small negative paramagnetism.
And, even though the "Dirt Doctor" has proclaimed that lava sand contains no iron, it is composed of as much as 15 to 20 percent hematite, which gives it its reddish color. Hematite, the most abundant of all iron ores, is an insoluble ferric oxide and has a paramagnetic value of +20.6 micro cgs units.
Therefore, on the basis of both this analysis and a second one obtained from Twin Mountain Rock Company, lava sand is, at best, only slightly paramagnetic, with a maximum magnetic susceptibility in the order of +3 to +4 micro cgs units. This is a far cry from the 800 to 1,200 micro cgs units of "paramagnetic energy" claimed for lava sand by the "Dirt Doctor" -- and the ludicrous 6,000 to 8,000 micro cgs units he has claimed for basalt.
Published data demonstrate further the absurdity of these claims. Hodgman’s Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (31st Edition) includes an 11-page table of magnetic susceptibilities (paramagnetism) of chemical compounds, minerals, and organic substances, all reported in micro cgs units. Holmium oxide, with a listed value of +243, has the highest level of paramagnetism in the entire table.
In any case, even if lava sand were strongly paramagnetic, and that property could increase plant growth and reduce pest problems, adding any volcanic rock powder to Blackland Prairie soils is redundant overkill. The smectite clay that so permeates these soils originated as a volcanic ash and is at least as paramagnetic as lava sand.
In fact, on page 185 of his book, Nature's Silent Music, Dr. Phillip Callahan describes such clay as being "highly paramagnetic."
Of course, it's also worth noting that the "Dirt Doctor" apparently believes that paramagnetism, this magical and mysterious energy, is water soluble. In his newspaper column of July 13, 2001, he announced that the commercial version of his own organic spray concoction, Garrett Juice, "now contains leachate of lava sand."
Trace Minerals: Of late, since his long-standing claims for lava sand have been debunked, he has begun scrambling for other attributes on which to to hang his hat -- and his pocketbook. For instance, during his two-minute radio spot on Friday, August 10, 2001 (and, more recently, on August 19 and 23, 2002), he said, "Adding non-native rock materials, dust or sand, to the soil will help plants grow better, but volcanic materials are the best. Their low level energy called paramagnetism helps make trace minerals available to plant roots."
First, adding anything less than huge quantities of sand to a heavy, clay-based soil is a recipe for disaster. Second, no plant nutrient is a "trace mineral." Plants don't take up minerals. He just doesn't understand that these are "trace elements" (micronutrients). And, third, only he (or perhaps his guru, Phillip Callahan) can explain how "paramagnetism" can affect the uptake of trace elements by plant roots.
And, believe it or not, on his noontime radio spot of May 17, 2002, the "Dirt Doctor" actually said, "Another way to build carbon in the soil is with (various organic materials) and volcanic rock powders."
Buckets of What? Aside from all this hokum, there’s still other, even more curious claims to contend with. During his call-in radio program on Sunday, August 2, 1998, the "Dirt Doctor" told his listeners that they could make their plants grow better simply by filling a few buckets with lava sand and setting them out in their gardens.
Maybe that levitates the plants. In any case, I’ll leave it to you to determine whether you should use metal or plastic buckets. On the other hand...
On his radio program of February 2, 2003, he said, "You can lay hadite (cinder) blocks on their sides and fill the holes with lava sand. Then you've got a paramagnetic wall around your garden." And then, two weeks later on February 16, he recommended hadite blocks for constructing a compost bin. "Fill the holes with lava sand," he said, "and it will maintain the right moisture level in the compost pile."
Then, after advising a listener to his January 31, 2004, radio program to apply lava sand to his sandy soil, the "Dirt Doctor" said, "You can just put it on top of the soil. After awhile, the biological activity--the earthworms and all--will work it down into the soil."
Now that is magical stuff.
My Lava Rocks: On his radio program, January 30, 2000, Howard Garrett smugly and gleefully described a visit he and Malcolm Beck (of GardenVille) made to inspect my garden and his discovery there of lava rocks. I confess that this is true. But Howard didn't tell the whole story.
Indeed, in one of our beds of roses, herbs, and perennials, we have four lava rocks, each about the size of a grapefruit. I'd like to claim that they are there as an experiment, but I can't. My wife and I brought them home from a vacation in Idaho 30-plus years ago, and she uses them in that bed solely as decorations. Nevertheless, a casual glance will show that they've had absolutely no effect on any of our plants. (I didn't dare tell him that I use LavaŽ soap to clean my gardening-soiled hands.)
Also, the "Dirt Doctor" failed to tell his radio audience that he hadn't even recognized the rocks as lava until Malcolm Beck pointed them out and made a joking remark about finding them in our garden.
So, go ahead and add lava rocks to your beds or lava sand to your soil if you wish. But don't expect either one to improve the health of your clay-based soil or your plants.
To Dirt Doctor Page/To Home Page
Read about the bug man who started all this lava sand business: To Phil Callahan
And while you're at it, you might like to visit the site of Nature's Alternatives. There, you'll find some real wild and crazy stuff for gardening and for just about every other facet of life. In fact, if you're a believer in pyramid power, quartz crystals, purple positive energy plates and vibrational forces, you'll thank me forever for pointing you to this site. And, If you think that kind of stuff is all hogwash, you'll thank me, too. You won't find many sites that'll give you a heartier laugh.
By the way, the "Dirt Doctor" better jump on the wagon here. These folks are peddling, not lava sand, but the mineral magnetite as having the "most paramagnetic properties found in all substances of nature." And Phil Callahan seems to be on board. Of course, this is absurdly ignorant because magnetite, a ferromagnetic mineral, is permanently magnetic and, therefore, by definition, is not at all paramagnetic.
* * * * *
[Before I started taking Hadacol, I couldn't spit over my chin. Now I can spit all over my chin.]
* * * * *
Paramagnetism and Magnetic Susceptibility: A substance is said to be paramagnetic (have a positive magnetic susceptibility) if, when it is placed within a magnetic field, its atoms line up more or less parallel to the force lines, thereby increasing the strength of the force field. When the magnetic field is removed, the atoms return to a random orientation.
A substance is said to be diamagnetic (have a negative magnetic susceptibility) if, when it is placed within a magnetic field, its atoms line up more or less perpendicular to the force lines, thereby decreasing the strength of the force field. When the magnetic field is removed, the atoms return to a random orientation.
A substance is said to be ferromagnetic if, when it is placed within a magnetic field, its atoms line up more or less parallel to the force lines and remain in that orientation when the magnetic field is removed, thus creating what is commonly known as a permanent magnet.
Addendum: On his web site, Howard Garrett presents a "technical" paper written by Thomas M. Dykstra, Ph.D. and published by Acres USA, rather than by any of the peer-reviewed scientific journals. (That it reads much like the description of a child's Science Fair project may explain why.) It purports to show that it is paramagnestism that stimulates plant growth, rather than any mineral content of the material.
In a series of tests, the "researchers" inserted sealed plastic vials and film canisters of "paramagnetic dust" into the soil alongside potted plants and supposedly measured dramatic increases in growth rates. Interestingly, though, it is to wonder if they have any real understanding about what paramagnetism and magnetic susceptibility are.
Dr. Dykstra defines the measured level of paramagnestism (in CGS units) as "the weight of paramagnetic material that will move one centimeter to a magnet in one second." Then he says, (the experimenter) "created serial type dilutions by filling film canisters with increasing amounts of paramagnetic dust so that he could obtain readings of 200, 400, 600, 800,1000, and 2000 CGS."
Do you see the contradiction? He's saying that paramagnetism increases with weight. So, a large barrel of this stuff might have a paramagnetic level of several million CGS units. That's ludicrous! Magnetic susceptibility (paramagnetism) is a constant for any given material, regardless of the amount of that material present. Even Dr. Dykstra's own definition says that.
On the other hand, according to Dr. Dykstra's definition, the measured level of paramagnetism would vary wih the strength of the magnet used, which it doesn't. Furthermore, the paramagnetism of known substances is generally expressed in micro CGS units, as noted in the discussion above.
If you care to, you can read this paper at Acres USA via DirtDoctor.com. It will certainly make you wonder what Dr. Dykstra's field of expertise is. Something like "History of Modern Dance" is my guess.