Alkaloid questions: grafting and stressing

[M S Smith]

Here are a couple questions asked within another forum and my own responses to them. I thought this might be of interest to those here. ~Michael~

Q: Does grafting L. williamsii onto a columnar cactus(for example) change the alkaloid content of this species? Does anyone know of any studies done in this area?

A: The answer is quite clearly no, there is no change in the chemical structure of one plant due to the grafting of it to another plant. It would appear that all a base plant does is increase the availability of water to the scion, allowing the scion to grow at a faster pace. The production of chemicals within a plant occurs within its own cellular material, something that is not transferred from one plant to the other.

Q: I've read anecdotal reports that conditions conductive to good growth lower alkaloids and stress conditions raise them. I'm unaware of any studies to back that up though they must be out there.

A: And yes, the reports you mention are anecdotal, but only because they are not clearly explained. Once explained they become a stronger argument.

Good growing condition do not in themselves "lower alkaloid" levels (or more accurately, limit production of alkaloids), but when you consider that age is a factor in alkaloid levels we can start to understand that if you increase growth rates through ideal growing conditions (something not usually found in the plants natural habitat) you rapidly create more plant matter that is not of age to have produced high volumes of alkaloids. On the other end you might have a stressed plant that is older, but being stressed it is not hydrated to a large degree, therefore you have a low volume of plant matter in which the alkaloids are much more concentrated.

Now if you take the blown up graft that is young and huge due to water volume, and also take the older dehydrated plant, and test equal amounts of them (by weight) for percentages of alkaloids you are going see that the older plant has significantly more alkaloids than the water laden, and heavier, young plant.

It is just this sort of misunderstanding that might lead one to think that healthy plants do not carry the same volumes of alkaloids as stressed plants. But I would bet, that should you have two similarly aged plants (both on their own roots, and for examples sake say they are rooted pups from the same mother plant), one fully hydrated and under idea conditions for rapid growth, and one dehydrated and stressed you will find that the stressed one has more alkaloids per volume of the plant. But that is not to say that it in reality has higher levels of alkaloid "because" of the stress, only that the alkaloids are more concentrated within this plant due to it having both lost weight and volume through dehydration.

This is not to totally discount the idea that a stressed plant might produce more alkaloids to better defend itself against attack when in a weakened state, but only to say that any increase in alkaloids for this reason are probably quite small and negligible from the human standpoint.

[squiresk]

""A: The answer is quite clearly no, there is no change in the chemical structure of one plant due to the grafting of it to another plant.""

Sorry, I don't know about the alkaloid situation , but there is a classical experiment where a plant (kept in the dark) is induced to flower, by grafting it on to a flowering plant (Kept in the light). I can't remember the exact details ( I can find out if you want) but it did involve the transportation of hormones, from one to the other.

What initiates the production of alkaloids I don't know, metabolic byproducts, stress or whatever, but it may be due to some kind of chemical signal/precursor floating around. Maybe someone could graft a Loph onto a tiny Pach, and another onto an old peyote, and compare alkaloidal content weight(gain)for weight(gain)

just my 2c, Kai

[Stonehenge]

Water, sugar and other nutes do transfer from the host to the scion. Hormones that are free flowing in the host plant will transmit to the graft. That does not mean that all alkaloids will do the same thing. Is mescaline free moving throughout the cactus? It's my understanding that it is not.

An experiment I proposed was to graft a griffonia simpilofia (sp?) to a san pedro or peyote to see if the 5-htp produced by the griffonia would transfer to the cactus and be used as a precursor to the production of mescaline thereby increacing the amounts of said alkaloid. Something to think about.

Stoney

[Rev]

Id like to see that

alternatively you could dope the cactus with 5-HTP

hmmm its been a while since i molested any cacti with a syringe...

Might be time again

[Stonehenge]

reville, what precursors did you dope your plants with? Did you get any results? If the grafting scheme worked, it would provide a constant source of precursors rather than a one time peak and should be better. Then again, it's unlikely the htp would float around in the plant. It's mostly in the seeds I heard.

Stoney

[Torsten]

may I point out that mescaline is not a tryptamine and as such adding 5HTP doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense unless you're hoping the 5HTP is used in the same pathway and will result in a trimethoxylated tryptamine.

or to keep the experiment simple, why not graft Loph will to a non-mescaline bearing species (or vice versa) and see what happens.

[Rev]

Torsten:

may I point out that mescaline is not a tryptamine and as such adding 5HTP doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense unless you're hoping the 5HTP is used in the same pathway and will result in a trimethoxylated tryptamine.

D'oh! how could i mess that up

re doping

dont know if it worked - probably not to any degree

3g of tyrosine into a metre of catus or so.

Of coures the gnomes that stole it after only a month and a half (damn you gnomes!), they sliced and dried then ground it and capped it.

They taunted me by sending me a note to say that they had a very stimulating time but that if it were their cactus thed have left it longer

[SirLSD]

hey rev. i have a feeling the hydroxylation steps of converting tyrosine to tyramine and then to dopamine could be fairly slow and the main rate limiting step. ever think of shooting dopamine into the cacti? pre dope with some s-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) which has been shown to be the methyl donor in the synth of mescaline in trichs. also a little b6 or b12 (i forget which one is used in the process). SAMe is found in "moodlift" ® with b6 b12 and folate. could be the best way to go about it.

anyone have any thoughts on this idea?

[ 15. September 2003, 22:13: Message edited by: SirLSD ]

[Torsten]

doping might be a novel concept, but please don't think that ti is worthwhile in the pursuit of a better trip. for this it would be much more important to do some selective breeding for good strains. the other option is to go for the more potent species in the first place. give pachanoi a rest and have a look at bridgesii.

[Stonehenge]

Is bridgesii more potent? How much more?

The doping game seems to be unproven. I've heard stories about how it works but the stories have all been second hand. Does dopamine work, does anything work? You would think that if it worked it would be used a lot. The idea has been floating around enogh years that a few poeple must have tried it by now, maybe hundreds. The fact that no one is really enthusiastic about it tells me that it probably doesn't work or has only minimal results. Perhaps it takes the right dopants in the right combination? We may be doing a doctor frankenstien experiment here and perhaps should not mess with mother nature in this way.

Stoney

[t st tantra]

gnomes i know using a stressing technique of cutting the cactus at least a month before hand and aging in the shade have never had a failure from pach or peruvianus.so much so they now have a developing theory that the pach produces a more visual trip,while the peruvianus is more spiritual.to put it another way,the peruvianus seems mainly mesc while the pach seems a nice mix of alkaloids.but they have been working the same strains for a number of years and are quite certain of their level of activity.and the better the preparation the better the result.

t s t .

[Torsten]

bridgesii is much more potent. you need about half the length (compared to pachanoi) and obviously bridgesii is MUCH thinner. volume wise it is a fraction of the pachanoi goop.

whether doping works or not can really only be proven with labelled isotopes. in the meantime I would suggest that much of the claimed increase in effect is in fact due to a combination of tyrosine and mescaline in your system which is much more pleasant and visual than mescaline alone.

[t st tantra]

halleluiah,praise the lord for the goodness of the plant kingdom!

can i get a witness?

please pm me if you can donate some bridgesii, to a highly qualified gnome, to verify torstens point.postage can be paid.

t s t .

[Torsten]

consider it on the way....

[theobromos]

Of course doping with SAMe could result in more of the inactive N-methylmescaline. It could be useful on Phalaris, I always thought. Perhaps some dried yeast flakes in a spray?