So I decided to check out the original publications that Trout and look at the references he used and think he has made errors or has misrepresented some numbers...
The closest why to fix the 0.2-0.25% yield of 5-meo-dmt is to assume it is of the 0.3% total alkaloids. So would equal 0.0006% yield is EXACTLY the yield I estimated on my last extraction. It could also be .02% but can't find the reference.
Looking directly at the publications from S. G HOSAL (there are a few) most of them he doesn't give quantitative values but gives the weight of the fraction so like he got 8g tar ball and from that he divided and started to separate and identify the compounds one by one NOT quantitative.
There is one paper his 1972 publication that does have some yields. Starting with 1.8kg of dry roots he ended up with a sum of around .4g 5-MEO-DMT which is 0.02% and 10x less than than the reference. DMT was found in larger amounts at 0.05% yield in this publication getting around .9g NN-DMT from the 1.8kg roots.
With the amount of references and numbers that trout had to collect errors are expected but then Julian seems to have taken those numbers as FACT despite being at best 10x off and then adding to the lore/setting and some minor exaggeration had an experience that NO ONE has been able to replicate even if the trace MAOi compounds were active it is still extremely low dose he mentions taking and a more realistic value would be at minimum double what he suggests AT BEST.
I emailed him recently with the correction but considering the book is 20 years old IDK if it matters. But his error has caused many like myself to grow this plant just to be disappointed. The lore is pretty cool but the experience doesn't come close to reality with very minor experiences.
This plant is active to some extent and I've had some minor activity however needed to add 200mg harmalas to the extremely minimal amount of content extracted. Based on original publications by Ghosal this is a better DMT source than some other plants reaching close to 0.05% content in dry roots. How accurate that is considering more recent publications in China and this plant is actually use medicinally adverse effects would be better known.
The closest why to fix the 0.2-0.25% yield of 5-meo-dmt is to assume it is of the 0.3% total alkaloids. So would equal 0.0006% yield is EXACTLY the yield I estimated on my last extraction. It could also be .02% but can't find the reference.
Looking directly at the publications from S. G HOSAL (there are a few) most of them he doesn't give quantitative values but gives the weight of the fraction so like he got 8g tar ball and from that he divided and started to separate and identify the compounds one by one NOT quantitative.
There is one paper his 1972 publication that does have some yields. Starting with 1.8kg of dry roots he ended up with a sum of around .4g 5-MEO-DMT which is 0.02% and 10x less than than the reference. DMT was found in larger amounts at 0.05% yield in this publication getting around .9g NN-DMT from the 1.8kg roots.
With the amount of references and numbers that trout had to collect errors are expected but then Julian seems to have taken those numbers as FACT despite being at best 10x off and then adding to the lore/setting and some minor exaggeration had an experience that NO ONE has been able to replicate even if the trace MAOi compounds were active it is still extremely low dose he mentions taking and a more realistic value would be at minimum double what he suggests AT BEST.
I emailed him recently with the correction but considering the book is 20 years old IDK if it matters. But his error has caused many like myself to grow this plant just to be disappointed. The lore is pretty cool but the experience doesn't come close to reality with very minor experiences.
This plant is active to some extent and I've had some minor activity however needed to add 200mg harmalas to the extremely minimal amount of content extracted. Based on original publications by Ghosal this is a better DMT source than some other plants reaching close to 0.05% content in dry roots. How accurate that is considering more recent publications in China and this plant is actually use medicinally adverse effects would be better known.
Last edited:
) that the "100g^1" format is a slightly unusual way of writing "percent"/"%". Perhaps this is a result of complications arising through their document encoding systems, since percent codes would potentially lead to, for example, whatever character is represented by the digits following the percent sign - but normally a percentage would be followed by a space, a full stop (period) or a comma, and not digits. I can also appreciate that the authors will have had to translate their work into English, presumably from Mandarin, which leaves me wondering if there's a correlation to the way percentages might be written in Chinese.