oneistheall
Rising Star
interesting though always confusing...
Journal of Ethnopharmacology
Journal of Ethnopharmacology
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
New mescaline concentrations from 14 taxa/cultivars of Echinopsis spp.
- Thread starter oneistheall
- Start date
Thank you for posting, as it is interesting to read. While I would continue to grow all my cacti, if I found that one was rocking %5.... I'd grow more of those!
The personal journey that these cacti have provided for me goes beyond the star-ride...but %5....dude.
Can you imagine only knowing weak clones and then stumbling upon a %5 facebanger? Rogue wave!:shock:
The personal journey that these cacti have provided for me goes beyond the star-ride...but %5....dude.
Can you imagine only knowing weak clones and then stumbling upon a %5 facebanger? Rogue wave!:shock:
oneistheall
Rising Star
yeah Ill grow mine also but now I find out that the real thing after all is the old Pachanoi BUT from MATUCANA forget the PC, the point is that I thought that in Matucana they had only Peruvianus...
5% !!! well deserves the quest. Im used to 1.5% from icaros dna and I thought that was great...
Juuls is an other fav. good to know as I started to grow some SS hybrids latelly.Scopulicola is an other nice one I would add in the future
The point also is that not all in the high is Mesca, look at bridgesii for instance, so prized but with a low mesca content... Varieties have trip variations also, thats cool.
5% !!! well deserves the quest. Im used to 1.5% from icaros dna and I thought that was great...
Juuls is an other fav. good to know as I started to grow some SS hybrids latelly.Scopulicola is an other nice one I would add in the future
The point also is that not all in the high is Mesca, look at bridgesii for instance, so prized but with a low mesca content... Varieties have trip variations also, thats cool.
I lurk over at the nook and corroboree and those guys have my head spinning with different theories ..... and I wouldn't argue any point, because I am still in data intake mode.
But, to summarize (as of right now, in my particular brain) over the years there have been papers written, notes published where the specimens were mis-id'd. (trouts notes on san pedro states that one paper was written about san pedro and every single picture in the documentation was a bridgesii)
Then the main seed supplier (to wholesale and retail) labeled his specimens based just on the area they were in... and in most cases didn't even label them correctly anyway.
Surely there has been some mis-id's by collectors and traders or retailers
So to me, it seems like first hand bioassay of particular clones (regardless of what they have been ID'd or mis-ID'd ) are the only real "studies" I get excited about.
It doesn't help that these bioassays could be illegal (depending on where they are done) and the in depth discussion regarding potency of clones available from retailers is discouraged on most forums.
Of course, you know damn well that I would snatch a pedro labeled "matucana" out of another patrons hands at the garden store :shock:
But, to summarize (as of right now, in my particular brain) over the years there have been papers written, notes published where the specimens were mis-id'd. (trouts notes on san pedro states that one paper was written about san pedro and every single picture in the documentation was a bridgesii)
Then the main seed supplier (to wholesale and retail) labeled his specimens based just on the area they were in... and in most cases didn't even label them correctly anyway.
Surely there has been some mis-id's by collectors and traders or retailers
So to me, it seems like first hand bioassay of particular clones (regardless of what they have been ID'd or mis-ID'd ) are the only real "studies" I get excited about.
It doesn't help that these bioassays could be illegal (depending on where they are done) and the in depth discussion regarding potency of clones available from retailers is discouraged on most forums.
Of course, you know damn well that I would snatch a pedro labeled "matucana" out of another patrons hands at the garden store :shock:
oneistheall
Rising Star
for instance karol k. labeled his famous 242 as a Pervuvianus from Matucana, but its actually a Pachanoi... I think that guy has a drinking problem.
I agree that selecting a clone is very important , as growing conditions but genetics is probably the most important factor
I agree that selecting a clone is very important , as growing conditions but genetics is probably the most important factor
The data for that paper is interesting, it is outer flesh, not whole plant in many of the cases, there have been no published reports of san pedro cacti having a mescaline concentration of 5% in the whole plant, just outer skin. However those intimately familiar with these plants tend to think that 6% whole plant is likely the upper range of potency...
The pachanoi from matucana was provided for the study by someone who grows cactus for a witches market, they also provided a fat blue peruvianus but this was not included in the study for specific reasons.
The highest concentrations of mescaline in San Pedro cacti come from pachanoi and bridgesii. Peruvianoids tend to be inferior plants in terms of data and anecdote. Of course it should be noted that the standard pachanoi in circulation is rather weak and does not seem to even be typical of pachanoi at all.
Erowid, something I am not a fan of, has a rule of thumb for dosage, it says something like 18 inches of cactus as thick as a wrist for dosage, if you did that with a potent clone you would regret it. A good clone works well with a dose about the size of a medium sized apple, 250 grams should be plenty for these clones fresh, that is a little over half a pound. If you followed the Erowid criteria with a potent clone you could easily ingest over 2 grams of mescaline, few people would repeat that a second time.
If you take the Reti paper into consideration you have to note that outer skin may only contain a third of the alkaloid in the plant, but at a much higher concentration overall than the whole plant.
KK is an old alcoholic, he also has a huge peyote garden and a huge San Pedro garden, his blunders and issues do not seem to be on purpose, likely the KK242 issue comes from a simple mix up of a single batch of cuzcoensis seed. Clones obtains from him with the label kk242 tend to be quite nice actually, but not cuzcoensis like at all. But then not everything bearing the name cuzcoensis is weak or inactive, just most of it.
As for hybrids... anecdotes about extraction indicate decent recovery of mescaline, anecdotes about potency indicate an activity somewhat in between the parents, so an offspring of two strong parents should be strong.
The pachanoi from matucana was provided for the study by someone who grows cactus for a witches market, they also provided a fat blue peruvianus but this was not included in the study for specific reasons.
The highest concentrations of mescaline in San Pedro cacti come from pachanoi and bridgesii. Peruvianoids tend to be inferior plants in terms of data and anecdote. Of course it should be noted that the standard pachanoi in circulation is rather weak and does not seem to even be typical of pachanoi at all.
Erowid, something I am not a fan of, has a rule of thumb for dosage, it says something like 18 inches of cactus as thick as a wrist for dosage, if you did that with a potent clone you would regret it. A good clone works well with a dose about the size of a medium sized apple, 250 grams should be plenty for these clones fresh, that is a little over half a pound. If you followed the Erowid criteria with a potent clone you could easily ingest over 2 grams of mescaline, few people would repeat that a second time.
If you take the Reti paper into consideration you have to note that outer skin may only contain a third of the alkaloid in the plant, but at a much higher concentration overall than the whole plant.
KK is an old alcoholic, he also has a huge peyote garden and a huge San Pedro garden, his blunders and issues do not seem to be on purpose, likely the KK242 issue comes from a simple mix up of a single batch of cuzcoensis seed. Clones obtains from him with the label kk242 tend to be quite nice actually, but not cuzcoensis like at all. But then not everything bearing the name cuzcoensis is weak or inactive, just most of it.
As for hybrids... anecdotes about extraction indicate decent recovery of mescaline, anecdotes about potency indicate an activity somewhat in between the parents, so an offspring of two strong parents should be strong.
although annoying to some extent. I kinda like the idea of a slightly loose mr magoo bouncing around on a motorcycle collecting cactus and seed...getting home, getting wasted and mislabeling seed packages. Right now somewhere, there is a (un awar eof mesc) cacti collector, bummed that all his KK cuzco seeds grew out shortspined. He's trying to make a cure for baldness. He's not that bummed, his failed hair shampoo is probably giving him light transdermal mesc buzz. He's finding himself less concerned with regrowing hair and he keeps catching himself drifting off in the most fantastic daydreams.
The uncertainty of the seed and cuttings and loose identification (plus all the damn Oz clone names) makes acquiring these specimens a more interesting task.
Its gotta be a little more like actually collecting the specimens yourself, than just ordering product on the internet.
O
The uncertainty of the seed and cuttings and loose identification (plus all the damn Oz clone names) makes acquiring these specimens a more interesting task.
Its gotta be a little more like actually collecting the specimens yourself, than just ordering product on the internet.
O
I've seen this discussed pretty thoroughly on other boards, and that data does not match the experience of veteran cactus growers. He either had unusual specimens from each species, or had flawed data. In the paper itself he talks about how only 1 data point was taken for each specimen IIRC. The paper is about as accurate as I'd expect an undergraduate thesis comparing plants that make you trip.
as for KK or discussing any clone / species.. really imo its best to just get a plant that has the qualities you personally like, give it an endearing name of your choice, and grow it out to your hearts content.
as for KK or discussing any clone / species.. really imo its best to just get a plant that has the qualities you personally like, give it an endearing name of your choice, and grow it out to your hearts content.
It matches the experience of more than one of the 10+ year growers that i know.ouro said:
More than that, he included all past data from previous publications.
all of his recoveries match data from previous publications.
another overview of data, keep in mind this was a powerpoint presentation at a conference:
the nice thing about that is the included photographs!!! for example check out page 71 of the PDF, it does have a photo of the plant whose outer skin had 4.7% mescaline by dry weight, at least that was what they published... maybe there have been some stronger values than were published...
there are huge flaws to the data of Bodes paper, true, but it is actually quite nice.
here is another summary of data, this time without pictures:
oneistheall
Rising Star
the more i read I realize that one has to make a selection of specimens.Those 5% mescaline cacti from the witches market are maybe being grown and selected for centuries.I managed to buy some Pachanoi seeds harvested from the wild in Lancas, Matucana.Who knows, perhaps the wonder dna? Ill tell you in 4-5 years time... Im putting my faith also in Icaros and Huancabamba.
I was alway's under the impression that most people found peruvian torch to be one of the higher concentrations and better trips...
I still have my four peruvians growing and have yet to sample them...this article seems to suggest I made a bad purchase!
Well I'll just take comfort in knowing that the results of the paper are not statistically significant.... I suspect any of the cacti species sampled could produce any of the numbers shown. not to mention I bet soil acidity and quality has a huge impact as well as other growing conditions.
It's nature. It's not going to obey our human need for quantification!
In any event I appreciate the article. Psychedelic science rocks!
Peace
I still have my four peruvians growing and have yet to sample them...this article seems to suggest I made a bad purchase!
Well I'll just take comfort in knowing that the results of the paper are not statistically significant.... I suspect any of the cacti species sampled could produce any of the numbers shown. not to mention I bet soil acidity and quality has a huge impact as well as other growing conditions.
It's nature. It's not going to obey our human need for quantification!
In any event I appreciate the article. Psychedelic science rocks!
Peace
staresatwalls
Rising Star
does anyone know a supplier for the dried skins or otherwise lengths of cactus? i found some seeds online but call me impatient but i would love some dried skins of this species.
staresatwalls said:
i wouldnt purchase processed cacti as it is illegal in my imaginary country, however botanical specimens for cultivation are not, and with just a few nifty tricks one can harvest their own outter flesh to achieve paramount concentrations
staresatwalls
Rising Star
so is that a no? b/c t. bridgesii skins are legal her in the good ol' usa
staresatwalls said:
Not really...
They can be regarded as a preparation containing a controlled substance.
To most Law Enforcement cactus skins are under the radar, not something they look for or see much of, but that does not mean they are legal.
