A sad site (image heavy)

[-YT-]

"AND WAIT 20 FUCKING YEARS then... let's be realistic"

Do plants in the wild actaully take 20yeaes to make a decent size? just interested as never seen any in the wild or have any idea on how fast they grow out there.

do know of Seed grown plants put into the ground if one had the land given 5-6 years would easily be 3/4metres plus... given satisfactory conditions sun water etc

Edited February 24, 2008 by -YT-

[Torsten]

Virtually every plant species or plant community that has been identified as a supply of a commodity has suffered as a result. In most cases to the edge of extinction. It would be naive to think of A.obtusifolia any different.

Re fire: A small percentage of obtuse seed will germinate without fire, so the species can easily proliferate in a non fire area.

Some folks have mentioned that the plant produces tons of seed in its 20 years and that this will all germinate when the fire goes through. I wonder then why you will only find a few hundred or even just a few dozen seedlings beneath one of these mature trees after a fire? You're forgetting that a large amoun of seed simply does not survive. It rots, it gets eaten or it gets washed away. I've seen acacia areas where fire was followed by drought and not a single seedling survived and the area was bare for several years.

I think this is such a silly argument. For some reason most dmt manufacturers feel they have some god given right to destroy these trees. Very much like they develop god complexes about many other things. Here's a wake up call: Look around at the people who have smoked large amounts of dmt and see where they are? Most are egotistical, selfabsorbed mental wrecks - a far cry from the enlightened beings they claim to be. While dmt is no doubt an important substance [especially in the form of ayahuasca], it is becoming increasingly clear that overconsumption has very much the opposite effect of what is generally ascribed to it. So it comes as no surprise that the lure of the cash and adoration also lets the harvesters delude themselves into their self righteousness and hence we will continue to have these threads over and over.

Fuck it I reckon. When I walk into the forest around such an elightened community and see trees stripped for nothing other than a combination of profit and laziness, then that shows the true state of these people. The hypocrisy.

To think that all it takes is to plant the trees and wait 5 years in order to have zero impact, or to travel to the area where this is a weed species, or at the very least to harvest the bark in a way that has minimal impact on the population, but even these simple concepts elude most of these apparently enlightened beings, then this really shows what low-lifes we are dealing with.

There are plenty of ways of getting dmt without being wastefull, destructive or inconsiderate, but failing to do so, or providing moral support for those who fail to do so is nothing more than a reflection of the people involved. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that those who have been doing it for a long time appear to regain their ethics eventually and actually follow these simply guidelines. They make sense for everyone involved. Now we just have to find a way to cut 5 years out of the process so we can skip the egotistical and destructive section of this path.

[ThunderIdeal]

good call, i reckon.

where does stripping leaves fall on the ethical scale? some seem to think leaves don't contain worthwhile amounts but i'm led to believe to the contrary.

obviously the tree's growth is affected, like anything that has some leaves stripped, but with my limited knowledge of wattles i don't see it leading to any kind of wood rotting fungi because the wood does not get exposed. with many plants 1/3 of foliage is a good time to stop pruning, so if you leave ALL of the wood and remove 1/3 leaves (even better if you strip this 1/3 from all different spots) then is that going to present a problem for the plant?

i'm just throwing it out there. i much prefer the idea of raising your own.

[Torsten]

I think leaf picking would be more sustainable in all instances, whoever that does not make it acceptable in all instances. For example it would be foolish to assume that leaf harvests of phlebophylla would be harmless as there are many other factors involved, such as spreading fungus by movement and weakening the plant by harvesting. For obtusifolia I can't see leaf harvest being much of an issue as the plant readily drops most of its leaves when it transpires more water than it can absorb and has no problem recovering from that.

I think there has been a strong motivation to find a leaf bearing source to take the pressure off the bark species. At EGA we were told that floribunda appears to be a suitable species for this and I hope some folks are going to check this out in more detail as this is truely a prolific species that can be grown almost anywhere.

I actually had high hopes for phlebophylla as a leaf species in cultivation. My plants have been doing splendidly for a couple of years now. However, when the wet season started up here this year all 3 of my large in-ground plants died within a week. So, I think phlebo can be grown for this purpose, but not in the wet parts of the subtropics.

[Mycot]

I.ve been informed that even dead leaves of obtuse on the ground are good for the active principle. Additionally alkaloid content of obtuse leaves may be as high or higher than that of Phlebo leaves. I don't think of obtuse as a bark species as my observations show that when alkaloid levels are high in the bark it is also such in the leaves. Ditto for maidenii which obtuse was originally misidentified with and hence the bark collecting. (The paper published on alkaloid levels of maidenii just happened to be a bark analysis, so many mistakenly thought that the leaves weren't good)

Sad to hear of your phebs sucumbing to the wet Torsten. They really are fussy about good drainage.

[~shameless~]

Acacia floribunda is such a quick grower, in the right conditions you would have more plant matter than you could handle in about three years

Bark? Leaves? Seeds? doesn't matter, produces plenty of all

YT you've seen obtuse growing in gardens - interesting

Edited February 29, 2008 by greenhouse

[-YT-]

floribunda exactly bro! and that stuff is almost all over Oz

I know it is quite rampant in some places around SA... floribunda

[t st tantra]

is floribunda one with seasonal maois?feathery foliage,blue colour?also seen a similar one with what look like true leaves.

would like to know more about these....

leptocladine,etc,maybe stronger than harmine....

t s t .

Edited February 29, 2008 by t st tantra

[Torsten]

floribunda is in the same group as maidenii, obtusifolia, longissima, phlebophylla etc and hence look quite similar. Sort of half way between longissima and maidenii.

The one you are thinking of is A.baileyana

[t st tantra]

thanx

t s t .

[ajna]

floribunda hey?

i noticed they have these in bunnings at the moment, ~80cm @$7. part of the 'breathe easy' range if anyone wants to pick some up

but i do think i recall julian having said he had tested this species and got a negative result ? surely worth double-checking anyway

[ThunderIdeal]

80 cm sounds alright. i would ignore the foliage when choosing. pull them out of their pots (while nobody is looking) and buy the ones with good roots (probably means you won't buy any).

[folias]

Unfortunately, material from a 5 year old tree is nowhere near as potent or strong or wise as material from a 50 year old tree.

And material from phyllodes is always a lot weaker than material from the bark.

DMT is not just the same from whatever source it comes from. This becomes extremely evident when making these types of comparisons... bark between phyllode, older from younger tree.

I would estimate that the obtusifolias for example, that are accessible to human beings by car or track would constitute only something like 5% of the total population of the tree. Also, the areas in which this tree grow which most people don't know about are massive... it is an EXTREMELY prevalent tree in many areas. The greatest "threat" to adult obtusifolias is and likely always will be - fire. And there are so many areas with little obtisifolias growing in them which have been subject to fires in the last few years. Yes, bigger trees are often less common than smaller trees... but they are still extremely common in certain areas.

Being precious about obtusifolias and trees is a bit of a Nick Spacetree trip I think... since when have you sided with him Torsten? ;-)

Lot of judgements there Torsten... can't see it really helps anyone, just fuels the illusions and projctions people already have (feeding what exactly?)... certainly, i don't know a lot of the DMT manufacturers (which I estimate at a handful anyway) because they keep their distance from me... but they surely can't be all that bad!

Julian.

Edited March 9, 2008 by folias

[ballzac]

I would have thought that once the dmt is isolated, the potency will be the same no matter the source, as it is the same chemical. Everything else you say I agree with...except the nick spacetree comment because I have no idea who he is. Looking him up now.

[incognito]

i think torsten is speaking in the best interest of the tree, this is a world wide web man.

have u seen the forest around lismore and what the dimitri freaks have done to the obtuse there? no one wants to go on a bushwalk and see that sort of carnage , mainly at large by profiteers who disguise their vandalism under guise of "spiritual enlightenment".

[Undergrounder]

I would have thought that once the dmt is isolated, the potency will be the same no matter the source, as it is the same chemical. Everything else you say I agree with...except the nick spacetree comment because I have no idea who he is. Looking him up now.

Actually by weight of bark, im pretty sure an old tree will have more DMT simply because it has more red inner bark to outer surface area bark. If you've ever seen a snapped branch from a small tree, the inner bark is green and supple, whereas the pics of old obtusifolia bark on the net for example are thick and red like MHRB. ie: 100g of old tree bark would be mostly inner bark, 100g of young tree bark would be mostly outer bark

But are there any 'DMT manufacturers'? Torsten mentioned them, but in another thread someone mentions that DMT is almost impossible to sell since it's so unpopular in general.

And far from fire being a threat to acacias, as far as i'm concerned it is their greatest advantage. Apart from what i've already written and seen, i came across other threads here that show the same. Sure they still can and do spread very slowly without fire, but they are a pioneer species that adapts particularly well to disturbed areas, barren areas and fire. They germinate on mass after disasters, bushfires, drought, roadworks etc. and dominate the landscape until the extra nitrogen they store and release neutralises the conditions for more fussy plants. Eventually, as these more standard plants compete ever more successfully, the acacia obtusifolias slowly thin out into a small number of large trees, setting seed and waiting for the next opportunity to re-take the land once again.

There are a few lessons as i see it from this cycle:

1. Killing large trees will stop the seed production in that area, meaning that if a fire doesn't come through soon, yes the acacias in that area may be wiped out.

2. Killing the odd tree in their natural, fire prone range won't make a lick of difference in the long term.

3. Since by definition areas near roads and towns are well protected by bushfires, the logical extension of the pattern would mean that while local and easily-accessible obtuse stands would be seriously affected by harvesting, the wild and remote populations would go on unaffected.

4. If you want to kill a tree for kicks, the best place you can do it is deep in the bush, 5-10 years after fire, This is while the young Acacias still dominate the landscape and before the few large, seedbearing trees establish themselves as protectors of the species in the area.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Undergrounder

[ballzac]

Actually by weight of bark, im pretty sure an old tree will have more DMT simply because it has more red inner bark to outer surface area bark.

Actually, what I meant was that once a person has extracted the substance that they desire, it doesn't matter what the source, it will do the same thing...unless of couse it is from a plant that has other alkaloids, 5-meo for instance. But whether one is using phyllodes or young bark or old bark, once the extraction process is completed, the resultant material will do the same thing.

[Undergrounder]

Actually, what I meant was that once a person has extracted the substance that they desire, it doesn't matter what the source, it will do the same thing...unless of couse it is from a plant that has other alkaloids, 5-meo for instance. But whether one is using phyllodes or young bark or old bark, once the extraction process is completed, the resultant material will do the same thing.

Oh yeah i didn't realise that folias was saying the DMT would be more potent as opposed to it containing more DMT. I'm with you on that one.

[folias]

For years and years I've heard so many people entering into "wowser" mode about the freakin trees... I cannot see it is really worth the kilojoules spent... it seems every man is an expert on this subject but actually very few people seem to have an unemotional and balanced view of this, or even a very knowledgable one actually.

I really don't know about any trees near Lismore... I know that on the far north coast, there are not that many places people know about where the trees grow. I remember this one area in particularly people were freaking out about years ago... but you would still go there and there were dozens of trees you would see which had just fallen over in the last few months, just rotting away... bit of a waste I always thought!

Obutisfolias they grow all up and down the coastal hinterland, (mostly south from far north coast) often in very, very remote places.

But whether one is using phyllodes or young bark or old bark, once the extraction process is completed, the resultant material will do the same thing.

no, it won't actually.

I would probably be about the only person here who has taken DMT from phyllodes from many different species, bark from the same tree, dmt from trees of different ages, strains of psychotria as it ages - all that. And I can tell you, it all does very different things.

It would take some serious trials and testing to prove that to the prevailing paradigm (which people generally believe) which says that a molecule is just a molecule and that is all it is.

Anyone I know who has done serious DMT research with many plants agrees with me on this point... it just becomes plainly and evidently obvious.

We should be encouraging people to manufacture DMT and make money from it, market it and get it out there, because seriously, the world NEEDS it and actually, the people who are really up to this and doing it with integrity are few.

Human beings are so locked into this blind materialistic dead endedness, that unless they get a grip and see the wider realities... I really can't see much hope for us.

At least this is what I am told.

This is a crucial paradigm shift.. that the word is not all meat and ever more unmysterious mind... but actually, there is an "other" which is like a living quantum domain which is largely undeniable and misunderstood - and yet uninvestigated - this is something very huge.

This tryptamine reference point is very valuable. It may be somewhat wasted by some of the many... but explored and used very well considered and explored by many of the few.

Saying all the people who make DMT are all greedy low lifes... who are rubbing their hands together and destroying gaia and giving everyone the finger... seems rather a cartoonish view to me.

For the most part, the people I know who make dmt, do it in pretty small scale, very irregularly, and are real champions actually - who would give it away and yet also do, if it wasn't such work.

I have heard of this one guy who collects mushrooms all season, dries them and gives them to people for free... DMT he charges money for because there is much more involved... and why shouldn't people pay if they are willing to?

I have heard stuff about other people on the grapevine and what they get up to... and also met some shady folks into this certainly, and there is definately a mega dodgy elements that have entered into this territory at times... (but are they really satans army trying to stain and soil the work?)

I say, we do what we can.

The nick spacetree perspective paraphrased in my words - "leave the trees alone, we don't need the dmt, fuck us, we are not important, let the plants prevail!"

I tend to think, "dmt is a huge fucking revelation which can hugely benefit the human species... get out of your head and actually do it and find out for yourself. There are plenty of trees out there. If we can reduce obtusifolia close to extinction we would hopefully be more than

bloated pseudo enlightened rapacious idiots and we would actually grow them and other trees in an intelligent way which will benefit us all.

We are not talking of red cedars here.

Of course none of this is sustainable at the moment, but neither is the human species at the moment. DMT is one of the better ways we can increase people's connection, understanding and awareness of what life is - seriously. For the most part, the people who could do with it most, are the people who are not smoking it and the people who could do with it least, are the people that are."

Besides, there are other species apart from obtusifolia which are much higher yielding and much more common... like acuminata for example.

So all this is really moot I would have thought.

Julian.

[Torsten]

We are not talking of red cedars here.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Or maybe you didn't realise that red cedar was the most common species of tree in this region before some human decided it was useful. And now it is one of the rarest.

[incognito]

BAM!

"wowser" mode about the freakin trees...

this is really bizarre terminolgoy for someone who puts so much emphasis on spirituality and the 'sentinence' that is contained within the trees'? the 'freakin trees' are a very important part of their local ecology, and alot more organisms depend on these trees than people in pursuit of enlightenment or spiritual evolution(not to mention grotesque monetary gain). i think what should be advocated here is ethical harvesting methods. anything else is totally irresponsible, not to mention totally selfish in my opinion, granted the number of kids and inexperienced people that read the internet. I mean any crackhead wanting to make a quick buk could be reading these pages, and hence forth jump in a truck with axes chainsaws and such and what happens next?

i cant believe the words 'freakin trees' would come out in this thread, especially from u julian.

how about having some respect for the plants that provide the molecule that u so adore, instead of advocating their destruction as being beneficial for the humankind.

that line of thinking has seen many many species of flora and fauna wiped from this earth.

fuken hell even the wiggles advocate care for the environment

edit-Here's a wake up call: Look around at the people who have smoked large amounts of dmt and see where they are? Most are egotistical, selfabsorbed mental wrecks - a far cry from the enlightened beings they claim to be.

hellelujah to that one!!!!!!!!!! gotta love that 'im better than everyone and everything vibe'! 'the all knowing!!!'

i know personally 2 people that have neded up in psych wards from smoking large amounts of dmt regualrly(no doubt it cant allll be attributed to dmt, but the permanant spin from reality was aided by regularly smoking large doses, undoubtedly), t u know one of them, remember that incident?

anyways advocating the destruction of trees for the psychadelic experience is pretty darn lame and pretty un-eveolved in my own un-evolved line of thinking. Be careful with this substance kiddies.

Edited March 10, 2008 by jono

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm not taking sides, i have no idea about the current population of these organisms. i certainly don't advocate carelessness.

it doesn't seem like anybody is much listening to anybody in this thread, everyones minds are made up. what i think should be considered if not acknowledged, is julian's point about humankind NEEDING dmt. i'm not talking about a few dudes smoking it like weed and going mental, i'm talking about lots of people who probably don't like six hour trips getting a peak into another world. it needn't be a purely spiritual thing, maybe they will just realise that if we don't live in harmony with the planet then we don't live at all. could it be that the environment gains more than it loses when wild acacias are harvested?

i don't think anyone here is going to disagree that the least damaging practicable method should be employed.

let's put an economic spin on it. more production means more supply means less profits, which maybe means totally reckless individuals will be discouraged from going to the effort.

[Torsten]

i don't think anyone here is going to disagree that the least damaging practicable method should be employed.

I think that's the whole point of the discussion - that some folks DON'T believe 'least damaging methods' are of relevance.

As far as the importance of dmt for humanity goes, if it is really that important, then why are we still pissing about with wild harvesting rather than making plantations of the stuff. Acacia resin has been around for over a decade now and still no one has got their shit together to put more than a handful of trees in the gorund. People have been talking about plantations for many years now, but when it comes down to it no one is willing to invest on a long term scale.

[ballzac]

some folks DON'T believe 'least damaging methods' are of relevance.

I think the disagreement is actually over whether certain methods are really as damaging as is being made out. I haven't read a single post here where someone has said that they want to see large scale environmental damage being done.

[folias]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Or maybe you didn't realise that red cedar was the most common species of tree in this region before some human decided it was useful. And now it is one of the rarest.

They are a very different type of tree... red cedars have a much longer lifespan and generally not as prolific as acacias are in general... for example, I cannot imagine seeing red cedar saplings as far as the eye can see after a fire.

then why are we still pissing about with wild harvesting rather than making plantations of the stuff.

because it is legally problematic and people are scared and how many people have the time, the money, the land, to do it?

I am aware of one very large plantation of DMT bearing acacias in Australia that has been going for many years... i am certain there are others, but you can well imagine, people are not blowing their horn about this.

how about having some respect for the plants that provide the molecule that u so adore, instead of advocating their destruction as being beneficial for the humankind.

The truth is, it would be, and the tree would grow back and is not easily "destroyed"!

Yes, these trees are not just sitting there and phytosyntheising... there are processes occuring that are valuable. These trees are in the ground for a reason.. and are fulfiling a function in nature. I see that. That is respect.

How many other people here see that I wonder?

Human beings are generally running around like idiots causing immmense ecological destruction... if there is anything nature can give us to help us to see what we are doing and how we are living that can cause us to wake up and SEE - I am quite sure nature is quite happy to provide that!

That is why I say "freakin trees", because it is just such a tiny thing that is going on compared to its immense impact on the species... and I feel that the trees largely see that.

People harvesting acacias is not even a drop in the ocean of what is going on, on the planet, that is of ecological concern... I don't think.

It is absolutely ludicrous to be even talking about in my opinion.

Yes, I do believe that people smoking DMT does affect the collective human conscious with the ability to bring more light, intelligence and self reflection upon itself and that is a morphic evoutionary effect.

Jono.. unless people get out their bullocks and start making new trails into the deep australian bush... I think most of the trees are safe. There are so many little ones out there... that even if in the unlikely assumption that all the bigger one's were taken, little one's would take their place.

I mean any crackhead wanting to make a quick buk could be reading these pages, and hence forth jump in a truck with axes chainsaws and such and what happens next?

as stated, the DMT market is certainly not huge... it could get bigger and ultimately there is nothing we do about zipperheads... a lot of this seems to be about people feeling that this is something that they can't control and a feeling of powerlessness about it... and that is the situation. And nothing we can say can change that.

I say we do what we can do instead of moaning about assumed other people and what they do.

Look around at the people who have smoked large amounts of dmt and see where they are?

Smoking large amounts of DMT is never really a good idea imo... giving DMT to your local mayor, newspaper editor, quantum physicist, artist, filmaker etc, is where it is at I believe.

I would have smoked DMT over 100 times and I am glad for the perspectives and insights it has given me... I could not conceive living without this insight now.... these days though I largely take it orally with ayahuasca vine...

anyways advocating the destruction of trees for the psychadelic experience is pretty darn lame and pretty un-eveolved in my own un-evolved line of thinking. Be careful with this substance kiddies.

humanity is in serious trouble right now... we are the one's who need help... where is it going to come from? Nature has much of it present, in the trees and plants... if we don't use this resource available to us ; it is us who is missing out.

I am not advocating people smoke large amounts of DMT... but a get a grip people... I don't this is a time to be tip toing around ethical concerns about a few species of acacias so that we are actually not utilising the gifts that nature is giving us.

We can do that gracefully, or not all. The ungraceful have their own karma to deal with.

DMT is not some weird anomaly... Terrence McKenna thought it was THE ANSWER. I don't necessary agree, but perhaps it is as close to an answer as humanity has got to I believe.

Shulgin says about the highest state in his rating scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulgin_Rating_Scale

PLUS FOUR (++++) A rare and precious transcendental state, which has been called a 'peak experience', a 'religious experience,' 'divine transformation,' a 'state of Samadhi' and many other names in other cultures. It is not connected to the +1, +2, and +3 of the measuring of a drug's intensity. It is a state of bliss, a participation mystique, a connectedness with both the interior and exterior universes, which has come about after the ingestion of a psychedelic drug, but which is not necessarily repeatable with a subsequent ingestion of that same drug. If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end, of the human experiment.

If you know what you are doing, have good and pure natural plant DMT, you can almost always bring about a plus 4 in human beings.

Shulgin worked with synthetic DMT, and largely with IV or IM methods.... which is not the same... you often won't go plus 4 with synthetic material and IV or IM administration routes.

I don't necessary believe in what Shulgin says here necessary... but look, this is big stuff. As we speak, old growth rainforrest all around the world is being razed for far lesser agendas. (toilet paper, newspapers, books)

So I don't think we should have any hesitation is razing old growth rainforest for DMT if necesary. (which it wouldn't be actually!)

Really, there are so many things to crow about that go in the world... and bring to people's attention, which actually bring people to be more aware of themselves and what is really going on in the world - I don't believe this is one of them. It just seems to put people in this artificial, self rightous indignant space, when actually, it would help to be more grateful, pro-active and positive about the immensity of the grace given to us.

Julian.