Mescaline content of young seed-grown cactus

[aizoaceous]

I'm growing cactuses from seed, germinated about 22 months ago. The seed was sold as Trichocereus pachanoi. I sowed many seeds into 50/50 coir/perlite, separated the seedlings into individual 1.5" cells after 4 months, transplanted into 3" pots after 9 months (from germination), then into 4.5" pots after 16 months. I watered with hydroponic solution whenever the medium was completely dry. I grew indoors under lights. Growth has been fast, reaching about two feet by 20 months, though just an inch and a half max diameter. That was unmanageably tall and skinny, so I cut them in half at that time. I also cut samples from that midpoint, which I extracted and analyzed by HPLC-UV per below.

Of my 12 cactuses grown as above, only 2 contained detectable mescaline. I'd left an additional 10 cactuses in their original container, badly crowded against each other and root-bound, thus stunted to about half the height and diameter. Of those, 5 contained detectable mescaline.

Those that did contain mescaline contained very little, with the strongest around 0.03 mg per g fresh weight. As a sanity check, samples taken from purchased cuttings of known active named clones tested between 1.27 mg/g and 2.30 mg/g. I'm not giving the names, since these samples were slivers from the edges and thus not representative of the whole plant. On that subject, I also took a full cross-section of a 'lumberjackius', and cut out a sample containing the outer skin plus a small amount of inner tissue, two samples progressively deeper inside, and one from the vascular bundle at the core. These yielded 3.02, 0.77, 0.51, and 0.68 mg/g respectively. This reconfirms the usual statement that the highest alkaloid concentration is near the skin, but all tissues contain useful amounts.

For those who prefer percentages, 1 mg per g fresh weight equals 0.1% fresh weight. Dry weight varies with growing conditions, but it's probably about a factor of ten lower than fresh (making the concentration a factor of ten higher).

I appreciate any thoughts on the reasons for my low mescaline. Possibilities may include:

• It's not actually T. pachanoi. I'm not much of a botanist, but the areoles seem to match the descriptions I've found. The plants are surprisingly tall and skinny, but that might just be the cultural conditions. I've included some photos.
• It's T. pachanoi, but genetically inactive. The literature shows big variation in mescaline content for this species, sometimes down to zero (and zero is probably more common than is reported due to publication bias).
• It's potentially active, but not under these cultural conditions. Stress is generally believed to increase alkaloid content, and my hydroponic conditions are the opposite of that. The higher abundance of mescaline in my neglected leftover cactuses may be consistent with this explanation, though that could also be chance (p = 0.18 by Fisher's exact test). I've seen variation by a factor of ~10 in the same clone of another species (my Sceletium) under different amounts of water stress, though this perhaps exceeds that. I've also seen claims that nitrogen as ammonium increases alkaloids, and my solution is around 90:10 nitrate:ammonium.
• Young plants are just weaker. The normal literature is little help, since that mostly samples mature plants, and amateurs don't usually extract such young plants since they're too small to yield a useful (or even weighable) amount. Frederick Van Der Sypt reported 0.068 ug/uL in an Echinopsis lageniformis (syn. T. bridgesii) seedling by quantitative TLC, lower than his weakest mature specimen around 0.5 ug/uL, and far lower than his strongest around 5 ug/uL. I think his ug/uL should be roughly equivalent to my mg/g, assuming 1 uL = 1 mg since the cactus is mostly water.

My indoor growing space is overfull, but I'll at least keep growing the mescaline-positive cactuses, and compare over time. I'm also growing my named clones under the same hydroponic conditions, and will see if their alkaloid content drops once I have new growth.

Technical details: About 500 mg of the cactus was cut into pieces a few mm on their longest dimension, then placed in a 15 mL centrifuge tube with 10 1/4" stainless steel balls and 5 mL 0.5% citric acid. The tube was shaken on a reciprocating saw for 90 s. This mostly homogenized the tissue, though the skin remained intact (and longer shaking didn't help). The liquid was diluted by a factor of 10 with mobile phase, filtered through an 0.45 um syringe filter, and injected.

This sample prep is quick and easy, with low risk of cross-contamination since everything that touches the cactus is either disposable or easily cleaned. It can't handle enough tissue to representatively sample larger cactuses, though. In future I may try homogenizing slices of the named clones in a small blender, with blanks between samples to confirm I'm cleaning properly.

My HPLC method was adapted from System HB in Clarke's. Injection is manual, overfilling a 20 uL loop. The mobile phase is 85:15 water:methanol (by weight, not the usual volume), plus 0.1% phosphoric acid, isocratic at 0.8 mL/min. The column is Waters Symmetry C18, 3.5 um, 4.6 mm x 150 mm. Detection is by UV absorbance at 210 nm. Mescaline hydrochloride crystallized from isopropyl alcohol was used as a standard.

This system appears to effectively separate mescaline from the matrix in T. pachanoi, but unlike in System HB many phenethylamines elute at indistinguishable retention times. So it's possible that peak in my seed-grown cactuses isn't even mescaline, though I don't know what else it would be. Perhaps the important difference is the eluent pH, since I'm running just phosphoric acid and they're running a buffer. I don't have their diethylamine, but may try with ammonium phosphate buffer.

 

[pete666]

I appreciate your enthusiasm as I have it too (you may see one of my attempts here). I may try to discuss the reasons of low potency of your cacti, just please tell me first what is your aim? Do you want to get some really potent cactus so you can use it for medicinal purposes or you just want to work with your pool of genes and do some research? I am asking because the answer to your question may be very diferrent...

 

[doubledog]

I would guess points 3 and 4 - your cacti are too young and grow in too good conditions.

 

[modern]

So I recently did an extraction of 20in of 1 inch thick bridgesii seed grown they are 2 years and 8 months old. I have harvested once in the past and they did have content but due to inexperience I didn't have measurable amount at the end the first time. I'd say even at a young age they produce content however it is dependent on growing conditions like doubledog mentioned. I got a yield of around 1mg per fresh weight with a slight clean up having slightly lower but cleaner crystals. I'll need to retest my 'inactive' peruvianus which yielded zero from a kilo fresh. 240g fresh ended with impure 200mg hcl salts.

Using the same seedlings without cutting give them 1 month dry period and another stressors if possible and retest. Judging by the photos I'd say those likely don't receive enough light. Nitrogen increases alkaloids however mescaline isn't a 'true alkaloid' but a protoalkaloid. Stress particularly drought stress is the most studied way to increase alkaloids followed by salt and metal stress.

 

[aizoaceous]

Do you want to get some really potent cactus so you can use it for medicinal purposes or you just want to work with your pool of genes and do some research?

This is something of a side quest for me. I got the analytical equipment due to my interest in mesembrine alkaloids and tryptamines, but I'd been growing the cactuses too so I took these samples. I've tended to find mescaline's body load unpleasantly high compared to alternatives, so I'm probably not growing for personal consumption. I still find these plants very pleasing to grow and study, though.

I would guess points 3 and 4 - your cacti are too young and grow in too good conditions.

That's my guess too. I wonder to what extent those are actually the same point, that young cactuses are weaker simply because they're too small to take up much water so the medium dries back slower. In my experiments with Sceletium, small but heavily skeletonized (from water stress) seedlings tended to be strong, while large but unstressed plants were weak.

Judging by the photos I'd say those likely don't receive enough light.

I should have noted that they're getting about 30 klux, 16 hours per day. I believe that's generally considered adequate for growth, though I've found very little information on alkaloid content under artificial light.

 

[pete666]

This is something of a side quest for me. I got the analytical equipment due to my interest in mesembrine alkaloids and tryptamines, but I'd been growing the cactuses too so I took these samples. I've tended to find mescaline's body load unpleasantly high compared to alternatives, so I'm probably not growing for personal consumption. I still find these plants very pleasing to grow and study, though.


That's my guess too. I wonder to what extent those are actually the same point, that young cactuses are weaker simply because they're too small to take up much water so the medium dries back slower. In my experiments with Sceletium, small but heavily skeletonized (from water stress) seedlings tended to be strong, while large but unstressed plants were weak.


I should have noted that they're getting about 30 klux, 16 hours per day. I believe that's generally considered adequate for growth, though I've found very little information on alkaloid content under artificial light.

Because of the general lack of scientific evidence in this area, everything here is based on my opinion, experience, and the limited evidence known to me. I may be completely wrong. There are so many factors involved.

I would place about 60% weight on point 2. Most random San Pedro cacti (this would be different for bridgesii, but that’s not relevant in your case) are, in my experience, largely useless. If the cactus is not a known clone with a reputation for being active, or at least something containing the genes of such clones, most of these cacti will be low in mescaline alkaloids.

The remaining weight would go to points 3 and 4. I don’t think there’s much difference regarding mescaline content between the 2-year growth of a seedling and 2 years of new growth (e.g., a pup) from a 50-year-old plant, assuming both were grown in the same conditions.

In general, the growth from the current year seems to be less potent, while growth from the previous year appears to be more potent. Older growth seems to lose potency over time.

I believe that age and stress factors are closely interconnected.

If the plant is stressed during growth, it can indeed become more potent, but it will probably generate less mass. So, the question is: what’s better for extraction? In your analysis, stress might show better results, though in a real extraction, it may produce fewer total alkaloids.

My strategy is to grow the best genes under ideal conditions to maximize growth, then stress the plant for a few months after cutting by keeping it in darkness. However, I extract the alkaloids. For direct consumption, I would use different genes and follow a different strategy.

 

[Nachooo1]

Regarding young plants and potency. I performed a CIELO tek over some young bridgesii seedlings around one year old, first 6 months under leds (300 - 400 ppfd) and the next 6 months in a balcony with 4 hours of direct sun (spanish sun..almost all days are sunny and nice high temps) . Last 2 months they were put under some stress without watering. Seeds were purchased from a well know german seller. The bridgessi seeds were no named...aparentlly they come from unknow parents. I dried and mixed the seedlings with all spines, core etc...being young ones core was soft like the white flesh. Results were 2% of mesc citrate. So..in my experience. young seedlings are quite potent.

 

[shroombee]

I'm growing cactuses from seed, germinated about 22 months ago. The seed was sold as Trichocereus pachanoi.

Were these seeds specifically sold as non-PC Pachanoi? Did they come from the US (where most Pachanoi is PC and relatively weak)?

 

[aizoaceous]

Most random San Pedro cacti (this would be different for bridgesii, but that’s not relevant in your case) are, in my experience, largely useless.

That's certainly my experience so far. My cuttings have been in the dark for a couple months now, and I could take new samples to see if that changed anything. (There's interesting variation in the behavior in storage; some look totally unchanged, while others show white etiolated growth upwards.) I also plan to stress the mothers and retake samples, and perhaps that will help determine whether the low mescaline is genetic or environmental.

The practical answer for anyone growing from seed is of course T. bridgesii, and @Nachooo1's experience makes that look pretty attractive. I was reluctant since I wanted the option to grow outdoors (and I understand the pachanoi is generally hardier). Perhaps I should get some, though.

Were these seeds specifically sold as non-PC Pachanoi? Did they come from the US (where most Pachanoi is PC and relatively weak)?

The seller's description noted that a seed-grown cactus would usually look different from PC, but didn't clearly state whether the seed descended from PC. It was an American seller.

That said, they're much weaker than PC. A sliver of PC measured around 1.2 mg mescaline per g fresh. This is probably an overestimate of my whole PC plant (since it doesn't include the weaker inner parts), but it's pretty huge by comparison, 40x my strongest seed-grown plant.

 

[aizoaceous]

I stopped watering these cactuses for six weeks. Growth stopped, and they got noticeably less turgid. From the 12 cactuses grown in 4.5" pots, I sampled both of the mothers that had previously shown nonzero mescaline. I also sampled one mother that had previously shown zero, and two cuttings that had previously shown zero. By this time, the cuttings had been stored in the dark for about three months.

All the previously-zero samples showed zero upon this retest. Of the previously-nonzero samples, the strongest showed 3.7x as much as before. That's the expected increase with water stress, though still only 8.5% of my PC. The other showed 0.9x, a decrease. I used a strawberry hulling tool to take the sample this time, so my sample probably overestimates vs. before, since it takes relatively more of the stronger outer tissue.

This leads me to suspect these plants are genetically weak or inactive. I guess my lighting could be a factor, and new growth on my PC is noticeably smaller-diameter than the original cutting. Experiences from others growing active plants under similar DLIs may imply that's not the biggest factor, though.

I might do some T. bridgesii to compare. I think these T. pachanoi will serve primarily as squirrel-resistant landscaping, though I'll retest after a year or so in the sun to be sure.