San Pedro- beneath the skin...

[teonanacatl]

who knows, somone test it. but please use weight not length.

[Monk]

I'm not sure how to weigh gratuitousness

[teonanacatl]

lol!

[t st tantra]

fm,i dont know if shade or sun is better,havent noticed much diference.i use semishade most of the time,sun sometimes in winter.sun in summer seems to damage the plant sometimes.

my theory is that the plant goes through to a metabolic rest state,ready to grow when conditions are ok,and that this rest state contains the greatest level of mesc and prob lower levels of hordenine etc.a cactii in active growth prob contains the whole range of alkaloids involved in its metabolism.

t s t .

Edited August 10, 2007 by t st tantra

[strangebrew]

Hey there.... I have searched, but I really have no idea how to really phrase what I'm wanting to know- the question relates to the common 'fact' that T. Pachanoi and other mescaline containg catcii have the highest concentration of alkaloids in the green, jellyish layer just beneath the waxy skin. For starters, is this true, and what exact alakaloids beside 3,4,5 are there.... Anyway, I sha;; be ingesting strips of that layer (SKINNED, DESPINED), dired out, ground and encapsulated; the question is how far do I cut inwards from the skin to fully get to this most of this nice bit ( I'm not worried about losing mescaline that much- I just cannot eat 12" of San Pedro), and not getting the fibrous, mealy centre parts....

I hope this makes sense and is approriate.

Sam

Just use your eyes and use anything that's got a bit of colour, you'll see what it's all about once you've cut into it. Interestingly, in stressed, dehydrated plants even the core has some colour.

500gms of wet Backeberg should do something for most people. It's probably not as good as the New Zealand pachanoi but it's still useful.

Letting a piece sit for awhile doesn't seem to do any harm in pachanoi but I can't say the same in my experience with bridgesii. I wonder if the maoi's break down or something?

[platypii]

^^^What MAOI's are in Pachanoi? Thats somewhat alarming

[gamma.goblin]

nah the Bridgesii

[t st tantra]

i've always assumed pedro contains hordenine ,just not much/enough[50mg per dose].

if my aging theory is correct,the hordenine level would reduce with 6 weeks rest.

i agree aging bridgesii may not produce the same results but need a bigger test base.

again this would agree with my theory.

i assume growing tips contain more hordenine and i've a taboo against using them anyway.

t s t .

Edited August 10, 2007 by t st tantra

[strangebrew]

Actually now I think about it a few weeks hasn't made that much of a difference. It was with a piece that I'd been trying to root unsuccessfully for a few months, 5 or 6 even, that there was quite a decline. It was way gentler and the amperage had diminished.

[Monk]

t st, I should have been more specific. I was asking if the cuts were stored in shade or sun before use. It sounds, though, like you're talking about them being in darkness. Per growing conditions, though, my experiences parallel your own with direct morning light/filtered light in afternoon being the best for their health and a little more light in winter appearing beneficial.

[trucha]

pachanoi can vary all over the place.

There is something like 30-someX between the highest and lowest reported figures in the literature.

64X between the highest and lowest report L. williamsii.

Friedberg used drug plants from the witches market in Huancamba and Poisson reported 1.2% dry weight looking at the whole plant (tip cuttings not including roots). Inez Gonzales Huerta and also Guillermo Cruz Sanchez used only the outermost green layer - mainly to lessen their slime problems. I think their material came from the Lima witches market. They reported something like 3 and 5% respectively but my brain is not coughing up the exact numbers.

Edited August 17, 2007 by trucha

[strangebrew]

On the whole we're talking about the common clone when people talk about pachanoi though, it also seems to vary widely in some cases.

[trucha]

What is a typical pachanoi? I think this might vary depending on where people are.

A foot of something typical for Peru (and these are in fact growing in Oz) could be fine but other questions arise including diameter and what is meant by typical.

In the US its different than what was most common in NSW. I've heard that in Vic. its more like what is in the states in appearance. No clue what is in Queensland or else where but I've seen images suggesting the more common Peruvian sorts can be had there.

A foot of what I have encountered as the most common things seen in NSW or the US would be something fine for a nice walk in the country but nothing significant

Even that one seems quite variable depending on time of year of harvest, watering history and feeding history albeit generally weak. 800 grams to 5 kg might be needed for the same results using a single clone line.

One's height seems a more reasonable length for estimating a length at least for most of them that I've seen in the US or NSW.

People might want to be sure they are talking about the same thing when comparing notes?

Much more data seems needed or at least a good idea to include.

Weights are better than lengths of course. Or at least they give us the ability to compare or understand what people are talking about. But again more data is needed.

If using length what was the diameter? Were they thin ribbed or fat?

Are photos possible?

Its almost silly to compare ideas if there is no certainty people are discussing the same plant.

Other questions that has me puzzling:

Why are people concerned about hordenine? Is there a reason to think it will be in their pachanoi? If so in meaningful amounts? A reference or % would be great.

I only know of around maybe a dozen published analysis of assorted pachanois only one of which found hordenine and that was just traces detected in a European sourced pachanoi by Agurell who only mentioned this in one of his two papers on teh subject.

More isolations are reported here but none isolated hordenine so far as I can tell.

More info would be greatly appreciated.

What MAOIs are in pachanoi?

I know this was already asked above but I could not spot the answer.

Is there a reason for the personal taboo against using growing tips? These seem to be the most commonly ingested part in Peru and Ecuador.

I'm not suggesting any of the people above are wrong in what they think or experience, I'm just trying to learn more details about why they believe what they do and the origin of those beliefs.

Thanks in advance!

Edited August 18, 2007 by trucha

[strangebrew]

When I say common clone I mean what has come to be widely known as "backeberg clone" over the last year or two. I agree that spineless or relatively spineless Ecuadorian types are around in Oz but they are far from common. I think in my time here I've seen maybe 2 pop up for ID's and they did both come from the sydney area.

I heard a thin common clone grown well in full sun for 3 or 4 years was stressed from lack of water(by accident) and then flower stressed on top of that (granted this is a variable that not everyone can have). It was cut just after flowering and then kept in shade for a few weeks. 650gms was had(2 ft from near the top,whole plant & done the traditional way) and it was much more than a walk in the park, actually the person was flat on their back for 12 hrs.

[teonanacatl]

the reason for not eating the tips is so the plant can continue to be grown, ie plant the tip eat the middle. Its not taboo but rather a wise piece of advice, if the plant was anygood then you have a tip you can grow of it.

[trucha]

No argument about being able to eat the middle of a section and have two plants in addition to it. A nice example of how to have a cake and still eat it. That was my approach for many years with pachanoi (I've been growing them for the last several decades) although now its eexccedingly rare that I do more than just enjoy its flowers.

The word "taboo" is what puzzled me since that usually implies more than just a personal preference.

Most traditional harvesters of pachanoi in Peru take mainly the young tips expressing a preference for the results.

The nice people harvesting around Matucana do the same for the peruvianus that is harvested for sale in the witches markets and dried for sale for export. They usually harvest pups from plants missing their tips and the same family has been doing so for many years (they claim since antiquity and there seems no reason to doubt them). They insist this is the most respectful and sustainable form of harvest as it leaves the large mother plants intact (or at least as intact as they were the year before; ) and stimulates lots of new pupping.

The same is true for the cuzcoensis harvested around cuzco and sold despined.

Also what appears to be tacaquirensis that was noticed to be in use in Bolivia by a friend travelling there fairly recently.

No analytical work has been done concerning this for pachanoi or any trich I am aware of but in Pachycereus pectin-aboriginum it was found that growing tips had a very different alkaloid profile (a different composition) than older sections suggesting the indigenous selection of only young tips might have meaning.

No argument about some of the common cultivar being sometimes potent. I would suggest that it is not really possible to reliiably compare what one has in their hands with what another person has in their hands without a lot more data even for a single clone line. Easily 4-5X variation can be found within just the predominate cultivar here in the US.

For a simple lack of anything better to call it I think I am going to start referring to what I used to refer to as the (clearly mythological) "Backeberg's clone" as pachanoi PC (PC for predominate cultivar with a punny implication of politically correct as it has been challenged as even being properly called pachanoi by MSS due to not having an ovary covered with black wool. I think they can all be called pachanoi for all intents and purposes. If nothing else to lessen our already abundant points of confusion.)

Native belief in Peru is that cut specimens get stronger if left to sit in the shade for 2-3 months.

Interestingly while I have found drought stress helps nicely a friend has been specifically looking at this for some years now with several species that are repeatedly bioassayed including bridgesii, peruvianus and pachanoi and insists that he can tell no good impact at all from withholding water. He suggests the opposite is true. I have no reason to disblieve his experience or mine which suggests more work is really needed.

It would be nice to see some well designed and well controlled work done judging the relative effects of shade and water and nutritional input and cut & aged vs freshly cut. It would also be nice to see it done for several species at once.

Samples of each prior to the test should be taken and retained for analysis to be sure they are actually synonymous as plants are known to potentially vary even from one branch to another.

There are a lot of factors capable of interfering with developing an accurate assessment especially if bioassay rather than isolation is the main assay approach.

Mescaline appears in the underground literature claimed to be a very mild MAOI (not something one would not expect as this seems true of any hallucinogen) but that particular claim has never been accompanied by any reference.

DMPEA was reported to show mild MAOI activity in rat brain MAOI at levels higher than what would ever be expected from ingesting a cactus. "some" maoi activity is how Keller & Ferguson put it. Whether that is applicable to humans at all who knows as MAOIs usually show a diffferent profile in terms of which MAO they interact with. Not just in terms of MAO-A or MAO-B but liver MAO versus brain MAO versus gut MAO can show a very differnt specificity profile.

Its not a simple picture.

The real question though is whether the amount present would cause any meaningful MAOI activity in a human. If so it would seem to be more prevalent in a peruvianus than in pachanoi.

The limited work done with MAOIs and mescaline is quite interesting. People mixing harmala alkaloids are claiming a potentiation of mescaline but this appears to be unstudied in any blind or suitably controlled test.

Iproniazid which is a nicely decent MAOI have been reported to show no effects on mescaline unless it was with pretreatment. Usually pretreatment means a course of them rather than a single dose.

I'm still perplexing over hordenine comments though. Its not a strong alkaloid and is really not particularly active unless decent doses are ingested and seems unlikely to be present in meaningful amounts. Its easy to assay for and easy to isolate. Its also easily purified since it readily sublimes.

One thing that might also be considered is the known fact that the triterpenoids in pachanoi are not all pharmacologically inactive. This leaves me wondeirng if the approach a number of people insist on when peeling the cacti has a functional meaning.

Icaros material is certainly much nicer than intact live peruvianus although without some degree of controlled comparison any conclusion is limited in meaning.

Edited August 18, 2007 by trucha

[nitrogen]

Has anyone though about de-spinning the cactus, and then let it sit for a month or two?

If the stress=alkaloid production this would of course be terribly stressful for the cactus, having to callous all those areoles...

I don't know if I'd have the heart to do that personally, but it would be a very good experiment to show wether or not physcial stress by cutting = alkaloid production...

You'd take a couple 12" cuts from the same plant, and let them each sit for a month after cutting, one despinned and the other not, then eat them and see if there was an appreciable difference...

Edited August 18, 2007 by nitrogen

[trucha]

Bioassays are too unpredictable based on multiple factors to have comparable meaning. Especially if they inviolv comparing bioassays of more than one person.

ITs a nice experiment (and experiments) being suggested but isolations would give much more meaningful results. At least in terms of the comparability of the results.

[teonanacatl]

a friend says he has some samples, he took X cactus and cut in half lengthways, one half was dried immediatly, the other was placed in a box in his drawers for about 3 months by which time it had turned yellow and was almost dry but had a tiny amount of rot. That was dried aswell. further analysis awaits

[nitrogen]

With due respect I think qualitative bioassay can be very telling, if done by the same person..

In my experiment above for instance, a bioassay on 12" of the same plant/section prepared in both ways could tell the experimenter if there was a dramatic difference or not - the specific alkaloid differences could not be measured, but if doing it one way produced a dramatically stronger or weaker experience I think that's valid...

[teonanacatl]

a difference between active and non active maybe but there are too many variables in a bioassay to be sure of anything. Unless you measured a physical symptom of the experience like for example contraction of smooth muscle and acetylcholine receptors, but that wouldnt be fun whilst tripping.

Bioassays arnt worthless they provide some useful suggestive information. For instance in the situation above what if the level of mescaline was lower in the shade but the level of another compound which provided synergy with the mescaline increased dramatically and so the over all trip was the same but the chemistry very differnt.

[nitrogen]

Yah, I see what you mean..

A bit off-topic but how about this:

Shade grown plants are said to be more potent by some, but aren't shade grown plants almost always significantly skinnier than sun grown? Cacti grown in the sun grow faster, and have a thicker and more bulbous growth right? So maybe the alkaloid content for a given section of sun vs shade grown growth of the same clone of cactu is the same, but by weight the shade grown plant will be more potent because that same amount of alkaloid is contained in a much lighter chunk of cactus...

In other words, maybe the genetics of the cacti tell it to produce a certain amount of alkaloid either over a certain amount of time, or at a certain ratio per vertical growth... So the thickness or mass of the cactus is irrelevent because that particular clone will only produce X amount of alkaloids...

Edited August 19, 2007 by nitrogen

[teonanacatl]

liikewise one that grows less may be more potent then one that grows more, annual alkaloid production could be the same. It is however not irrelevent, if you only need to eat 1kg of shade grown vs 5kg of sungrown then thats a good thing, its different however if you are wishing to extract the alkaloids. The reason peyote is so great for use is because such a small amount needs to be ingested.

[trucha]

Unfortunately its not always true.

It really depends on the forms. Some of the really fat pachanoids will only grow really fat when starting with shade as they are understory cacti that eventully poke through their nurse plants into the sun.

For the sun lovers they do grow quite skinny with inadequate sun.

For some something in-between is best to start out for having really fat adult plants (bright filtered light) In their native habitat the fattest Matucana peruvianus start out under open shrubbery and grasses. Here I am talking about the bases not the tips as fat bases can grow really fat tips even when those new tips form in good sun.

Others like Koehre's macrogonus love being started at 90 degrees F on a heating mat and will be fat and happy in full sun after their first year (or at least mine were) They sure did not appreciate being moved to the redwoods where I now live.

Shading can be done for cuttings if potency increase from shading is what is being evaluated.

Within one single person bioassays can certanly be fairly meaningfully compared. Its not always reliable though as other factors can come into play (health, mood, environment) but its close enough for deciding if something is really potent or not. As long as it is evaluating simple generalities like that one then no problem. Its also the only avenue available to most interested people.

I'd still suggest the importance of having at least a single blind experiment. (ie do not know which one you are ingesting in advance.) All you ned is to enlist the help of a friend who is not a practical joker to serve them or put them into identical containers labelled on the bottom for identification, mix them up so you no longer know which is which and don't look at the ID until after you've completed both bioassays.

I'm not suggesting you could not tell which was stronger even when knowing but adding this will help lessen the potential impact of other variables and helps better legitimize what you did as research rather than just dosing yourself.

If its not for being scientific exploration it really does not matter how you do it but science requires some sort of rigor.

If one does isolations that limitation (all bioassays being compared being within one single bioassayist) is no longer needed.

Then it becomes possible to compare notes with each other in a much more meaningful way. That really expands what is possible.

Edited August 19, 2007 by trucha

[strangebrew]

Interestingly while I have found drought stress helps nicely....

BTW, have you also noticed dehydrated cuttings produce thinner syrup and hence can be reduced more?