Jump to content
The Corroboree
yagelight

Acacia Acuminata

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure this in the right section?

But if someone was in a country where it was legal, could the leaf of Acacia Acuminata be used for an aya brew? Been looking every where and can't seem to find and info.Can someone please help? Bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for some reason i dont think it would be suitable for a aya brew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone in a country were it is legal, desired to use Acacia Acuminata for "aya" i imagine they would use an extraction on the Acacia and then add the extracted material to the brew.

However this would be completely illeagle in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason why one should not use the phyllodes straight as is in a brew. The water should be a touch acidic.

Dry the phyllodes out well if intending to store them for any lenght of time to inhibit enzymatic breakdown.

Dry weight of the phyllodes I'd guess to be approximatelly 50% of the wet weight.

You may have to experiment a little to get the dosage right as the potency of the phyllodes may vary with the younger phyllodes likely to be at least a little more potent than older phyllodes.

One can still work out rough ball park figures to start working out how much material is required.

Count the required amount of alkaloid to be between 60mg and 150mg.

The amount of alkaloid in the leaves will likely fall between 0.5% and 1.5% of the dry weight.

One can work out an approximate amount of material to use from this.

One approach that will give some more flexibility is that if the first dose is insufficient to bring about an effect after three quarters of an hour one could take a second. Repeated small doses is a common practice in a number of ayahuasca traditions of South America.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been used successfully in such brews. It is currently being grown by entheogenic researchers in Canada and the states for this purpose. Needs some respect in the wild, according to other sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acuminata phyllodes are the bomb.

It is very gentle and perfect for Ayahuasca healing. You will not get completely blasted as with other plants, but for use with caapi... it is amazing.

But go gentle... start slowly, I know some people who have really blasted themselves by going too hard with Acuminata by underestimating its potency, which, if it is at 1.5% means that 10 grams may well be pretty darned potent!

I can't see how beurocratic "laws" arising out of inane legislation occuring for political reasons are at at all relevant here. This is a natural and native plant with powerful healing properties.

If you are directed to take it, don't let the "law" stop you! If you are really concerned about the law, go to your local cop shop with some phyllodes and rue, and run it past them and see if you can't get fined or even better locked up! Make sure to film the adventure and put it on youtube. we'd all love to see you go ! :-) they would probably just laugh at you and tell you to stop wasting their time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks l think l got what l wanted to know, interesting topic though!

Such a lovely little tree... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could the same be said of maidenii phyllodes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could the same be said of maidenii phyllodes?

 

Maidenii is generally a little more difficult since there are few high alkaloid strains although they do exist.

A lot of maidenii strains have only about 0.1% alkaloid.

Good results have been obtained by many researchers with A.obtusifolia phyllodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maidenii is generally a little more difficult since there are few high alkaloid strains although they do exist.

A lot of maidenii strains have only about 0.1% alkaloid.

Good results have been obtained by many researchers with A.obtusifolia phyllodes.

 

Obtus has cyanide deriv's in it. I know you mean in general Mycot but for reiteration sake in this topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obtus has cyanide deriv's in it. I know you mean in general Mycot but for reiteration sake in this topic...

 

a number of folks that have used A.obtusifolia phyllodes in aya brews without problems.

While a number of acacia species do contain hydrocyanic glycocides I know of no original research that has detected their presence in A.obtusifolia. It has been listed as occuring in A.obtusifolia in a book on Australian trees and this may possibly be in error. Erring on the side of caution one may wish to for-go using this species in brews until further information comes to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are findings of cyanogens in obtusifolia leaf, but heat would break them down. I think acuminata would be better for a first time experience as obtusifolia contains other alkaloids. See wikipedia. From NSW some A. longifolia strains can be used, and from Vic. floribunda phyllodes.

Acuminata is by far the most common species.

Edited by Torsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the research with A.longifolia has found it to be devoid of tryptamines and there is a thread here that mentions that species being used for poisoning waterholes. Wikipedia information on many acacia species have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mycot, some longifolias definitely got the goods. Take poisoning waterholes with grain of salt.

Edited by Torsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was away and didn't have time to look at the acuminata thread when it was first posted. The original question was not acceptable in the form it was posted. It is an interesting thread and while very borderline I want to keep it because of it's interesting and new content. However, you guys need to learn how to phrase things better. In many posts all I needed to change was one word to make it acceptable [that includes the original post]. You are being lazy!

Giving drug consumption advice is illegal in all states. Evil Genius was correct in interpreting the rules and you need to learn to respect the mods when they ask you to do something, even if they err on the side of caution [you can always protest to admin later]. Phyllode, your posturing about knowing the law just made you look silly because you obviously don't.

I have also left Julian's ridiculous statement because I think it will be seen on its own merit.

I have edited the thread for minor details and have taken the argument out of it. This is an exceptional thread because of it's uniqueness of topic and is not what we normally allow.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My essential points regarding legality are to do with self incrimination. If the information given is prosecutable 'drug consumption advice', which i don't believe it is, then most people here, including you Torsten, are as liable as myself.

As for 'looking silly', well i don't really care if i'm not cool enough for the scene here. But I stand by everything said, don't feel silly, and am not convinced by the calmness of some previous moderating by others here. Such a high degree of concern regarding the possible 'incrimination' of members just seems overally self-incriminating of the site. I don't think majority of interested members have a lot to worry about.

I would prefer to continue interesting discussion than argue.

Edited by phyllode
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now everything's cooled down, hopefully,

I just wanted to mention to Mycot that Wikipedia entries on plants and science subjects are removed by in-field-specialist moderators if they cannot be backed up with verifiable or reputable sources. It's not as unreliable as I myself once considered it anymore.

Edited by phyllode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now everything's cooled down, hopefully,

I just wanted to mention to Mycot that Wikipedia entries on plants and science subjects are removed by in-field-specialist moderators if they cannot be backed up with verifiable or reputable sources. It's not as unreliable as I myself once considered it anymore.

 

My problem with Wikipedia is that many believe that because it is moderated that it approaches something akin to gospel. While it backs up many entries with secondary sources these are not always neccessarily of high quality in the sense of being verifiable or reputable. Indeed it took me only a few minutes to find a blatant error. Peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature would likely rate the highest in terms of reputability and in many cases these are absent in regards to the entries. Even in this case errors have at times occured or findings disputed.

Confidence in sources outside the scientific literature often have to be considered on a case by case basis.

For example one of the sources quoted "Ratsch" has recieved a fair amount of criticism over the years for errors in his work. Additionally a good number of entries lack any quantitative analysis so that compounds may well be present in only minute trace amounts. Without indicating this these same entries often generate unwarrented exitement in the entheogenic community. Wikipedia may have improved over the years, however I would like to see a lot more scientific research and scientific papers published.

Welcome to the corroboree despite the rocky start. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×