stressed san pedro creating more mescaline?

[jamaica0535]

I completely forgot to mention that you would without a doubt produce more total mescaline if it had optimal conditions and acquired a large mass.

Stressing only increases mescaline concentration; definitely not the total amount. If you have the means to give it optimal growing conditions, by all means do it.

so really, it would work out pretty good if you gave it optimal conditions until it gets to about as large as you can possibly get it, and form what others have been saying the concentration goes up as they get older anyways....

once you have the mass, then you could possibly stress it to increase concentrations in a generally larger cactus and produce even more mescaline out of it....

just an idea....

 

[Ismene]

This is where my knowing nothing about botany might play in. Still, couldn't it be that the cost/benefit of using metabolic energy to produce alkaloids at an early stage weighs in favor of say, producing thicker skin to keep out fungal infections or whatever, and that mescaline only becomes an adaptive advantage later?

Maybe, but would an animal find mescaline that unpleasant? Many sheep actively seek out magic mushrooms because they enjoy tripping. Presumably we're only talking about mammal predators anyway - mescaline is presumably ineffective against insects or fungi attackers. You'd think if the cacti was using alkaloids to deter predators it would have come up with something more deadly than mescaline.

 

[daysonatrain]

yes, i find it kinda hard to believe that mescaline is produced as a deterrance against plant eaters. and it seems very unlikely that it would effect insects or fungi attackers as ismene said.
i can see this working for mushrooms, to a degree, because it would take a lot less to "mess" an animal up.

"Stressing only increases mescaline concentration; definitely not the total amount."
uniter, im a bit confused here, if stressing caused the mescaline concentration to rise, why would it not change the total amount. it sounds like your saying stressing, in effect, is only reducing the total weight/volume of the cacti, (through deprivation), and that is why the concentration is higher. is this what you meant? so this would basically mean that stressing was a useless practice. though im not exactly sure what you meant.

 

[ectolysergic]

i've had animals munch my cacti many times over the years. actually, i have a couple that are still recovering from a recent squirrel encounter.

 

[daysonatrain]

what does that have to do with mescaline being a deterrant... in fact it sounds like the mescaline didnt deter them at all.

and like someone else said, mescaline is a pretty bad deterrant of humans. i imagine a low dose of mescaline to a squirrel would feel just as good to them as to me, though its impossible to say.

 

[psood0nym]

yes, i find it kinda hard to believe that mescaline is produced as a deterrance against plant eaters. and it seems very unlikely that it would effect insects or fungi attackers as ismene said.

Regarding mescaline's effectiveness as a responsive deterrent: it depends on what the deterrent-sensitive predators were during the deterrent's evolution in the cacti's historically native habitat (the fact that squirrels eat it may or may not mean anything). Direct deterrents could include mescaline or other alkaloids whose increased production in reaction to predation include mescaline as a byproduct. If either case is true, the end result is still that simulating predation increases mescaline production. Also, I never speculated that mescaline had anti-fungal properties. I suggested that mescaline production might not be high in the younger more vulnerable plants because it makes more sense for the younger plants to prioritize the use of limited resources in favor of protecting against threats for which mescaline is not a deterrent first, e.g. something like growing thicker skin to protect against fungal infections.

Maybe, but would an animal find mescaline that unpleasant? Many sheep actively seek out magic mushrooms because they enjoy tripping. Presumably we're only talking about mammal predators anyway - mescaline is presumably ineffective against insects or fungi attackers. You'd think if the cacti was using alkaloids to deter predators it would have come up with something more deadly than mescaline.

Many sheep might enjoy eating 4-ho-DMT containing mushrooms, you may be right. But consider also that DMT containing phalaris grass kills them (right?). Though we enjoy DMT orally in the presence of an MAOI and mescaline in cacti, there's no telling for sure what effect something that makes us trip might do to other mammals or insects--even at low concentrations.

For example, fruit flies have evolved a taste receptor to detect an amino acid common in legumes, L-canavanine, that doesn't even kill them. Rather, it causes their larvae to die much later. The acid simply tastes bad to the flies (it doesn't cause them immediate pain or harm like we traditionally think of deterrents) and that's enough to get flies to leave the legumes with the acid alone instead destroying the plants--win-win. The same amino acid is reportedly an anti-cancer agent in humans.

A deterrent alkaloid doesn't have to be optimally effective for a certain predator either. It just has to have formed from small changes in the bio-machinery of evolutionary predecessors (which puts constraints on the types, an resultant effectiveness, of deterrents a plant can make) and result if favorable outcomes for the species, whatever the means. So long as the benefit of producing it outweighs the cost it'll keep being made, and there's probably a million ways deterrents can work we'll never think of or discover. In any case, I doubt using a clean needle to poke some holes in your cactus every once in a while will be detrimental to the plant, whether it works or not. It's theoretically reasonable and there's one post claiming it's been read about somewhere else. Sounds like it's worth a shot.

 

[any major dude]

I would think it unlikely that mescaline is a deterrant, however evolution does not always come up with the most efficient ways to deal with things. As it is created in the cactus from dopamine i would imagine it may be a metabolic by product of some other function, but I'm not sure, and have yet to come across any reliable theories on the reason for its production in cacti. Selective human breeding for thousands of years may have some effect on this, but there's no way to know how much san pedro a shaman needed 4000 years ago.

 

[Newmoonrecord]

yeah man, just invest in some L-DOPA infusions. That way you can get the most length and weight without stressing the plant too much. Also, have the patience to raise older plants. It's true in my experience that older plants have a higher concentration. (like 5-10 years old) .. Buy a 5-10 year old plant and take large cuttings. Just so that the stalks will re-branch. You can use the pups as your day to day supply, and then keep the big old branches growing separately and save them for later. If growing indoors be sure to give them UVB if at all possible since they are usually exposed to a lot of it at their homes at high altitude.

 

[psood0nym]

any major dude: thanks for that. I did a search using some of that information and came up with Erowid's guide to increasing mescaline content in cacti.
With the exception of chemical doping with dopamine, dopa, and tyramine precursors, no strong rationale is given for any of the stressing techniques (the list does include simulated predation, referring to it as, "A much ignored method of significantly increasing alkaloid buildup," though).

 

[tryp2fun]

I think that the idea of injecting precursors like dopamine and DOPA into cacti is a misunderstanding of the old experiments where radioactive precursors containing 14-C were injected into plants to determine the biosynthetic pathway. The alkaloids were then isolated after a period to see if any radioisotope was incorporated. The incorporation of the radioisotopes into mescaline was very inefficient, mostly with only 1-2% incorporation of radioactivity. Based on that data, I conclude that doping of cacti would have a negligible effect on alkaloid content.

 

[Newmoonrecord]

I think that the idea of injecting precursors like dopamine and DOPA into cacti is a misunderstanding of the old experiments where radioactive precursors containing 14-C were injected into plants to determine the biosynthetic pathway. The alkaloids were then isolated after a period to see if any radioisotope was incorporated. The incorporation of the radioisotopes into mescaline was very inefficient, mostly with only 1-2% incorporation of radioactivity. Based on that data, I conclude that doping of cacti would have a negligible effect on alkaloid content.

From what ive heard, people who have done it have experienced good results.

Im going to do it this next spring and will make a careful comparison between two identically sized and aged cuttings taken from the same mother plant , grown in the same conditions.

 

[jam uh weezy]

^That's awesome man, please let us know the results! Would it possible for you to do one more, with less and/more lighting conditions??

Maybe, but would an animal find mescaline that unpleasant?

probably not. but you have to keep in mind the modes of ingesting cactus-sourced mescaline, vs. eating mushrooms. Can you imagine a sheep gobbling down a foot+ of san pedro?
You have spines to deal with, a thick, fingernail like skin, and the sheer amount of cactus you have to use, vs, mushrooms is massive. This is why boiling the flesh is so essential, it makes it easier to consume the large amount of palnt-matter.

I don't think there are any animals who would be able to eat cactus without severely damaging their insides.

 

[psood0nym]

From what ive heard, people who have done it have experienced good results.

Im going to do it this next spring and will make a careful comparison between two identically sized and aged cuttings taken from the same mother plant , grown in the same conditions.

If there is only a 1 to 2 percent incorporation of 14-C labeled DOPA and dopamine in the mescaline of the cacti, that's pretty damning evidence--at least if the cactus they were using was San Pedro, since it's possible that different species of mescaline containing cacti could vary in the biosynthetic pathways to mescaline production. Are you suggesting that the cactus produces more mescaline in reaction to the injection of the precursors for a reason independent of these precursor's incorporation into mescaline? Perhaps tryramine is a better bet, since a substantial role in the pathway for it has not been cast in doubt (at least not by evidence referred to in this thread)? Perhaps tryp2fun has ideas for better precursors?

 

[tryp2fun]

If there is only a 1 to 2 percent incorporation of 14-C labeled DOPA and dopamine in the mescaline of the cacti, that's pretty damning evidence--at least if the cactus they were using was San Pedro, since it's possible that different species of mescaline containing cacti could vary in the biosynthetic pathways to mescaline production. Are you suggesting that the cactus produces more mescaline in reaction to the injection of the precursors for a reason independent of these precursor's incorporation into mescaline? Perhaps tryramine is a better bet, since a substantial role in the pathway for it has not been cast in doubt (at least not by evidence referred to in this thread)? Perhaps tryp2fun has ideas for better precursors?

The old experiments were done with both peyote and San Pedro. I think that the main problem is plants are not simply bags of enzymes. They are complex organisms with intracellular compartmentalization. Bulk injections of compounds into plants may not get taken up efficiently into the compartments where synthesis takes place. There may be no systems for uptake of dopamine or DOPA into cells, since those metabolites are generated intracellularly. I don't have any evidence for what would work better, but mescaline is ultimately derived from the common amino acid, tyrosine, so based on biochemistry I would think it would have the best shot.

To get back to the original topic, I have seen the results of HPLC analysis of San Pedro just after harvest and after the logs were left sitting in a dark closet for 3 months. Slices were taken, dried in an oven, and crushed in a mortar and pestle, then extracted with methanol. There was no significant difference in mescaline content. In one experiment, using new growth, the content was higher after sitting in the dark (0.3% ->0.6% ), while the other was the opposite, 0.4% before and 0.3% after. It is most likely that these differences are due to sampling error, due to differences in the location of the samples on the plant and variation in the content of green flesh in the sample. When the thick bases of the plants were examined by HPLC, there was no difference at all between freshly cut cactus and after sitting for several months in the dark (0.2% in all cases). This seems to suggest that the highest alkaloid content is in the new growth, not in the older base, in contrast to some suggestions earlier in this thread. I think that genetics is the most important factor in cactus potency. Other San Pedros have been tested as high as 2%.

 

[MyExcuse]

I just too about 7 4-6 inch plants (base uprooted) and stuck them into a paper bag in a dark closet.

I'm going to ensure rotting doesn't occur but I will be assessing potency compared to previous sampling of fresh cuttings.

Most are a year old but some are 3+ old and thick so we'll see what happens.

I may dip the root portions into some type of saturated solution (possibly mucuna pruriens extract) periodically to see how that affects production of alkaloids.

 

[psood0nym]

The old experiments were done with both peyote and San Pedro. I think that the main problem is plants are not simply bags of enzymes. They are complex organisms with intracellular compartmentalization. Bulk injections of compounds into plants may not get taken up efficiently into the compartments where synthesis takes place. There may be no systems for uptake of dopamine or DOPA into cells, since those metabolites are generated intracellularly. I don't have any evidence for what would work better, but mescaline is ultimately derived from the common amino acid, tyrosine, so based on biochemistry I would think it would have the best shot.

To get back to the original topic, I have seen the results of HPLC analysis of San Pedro just after harvest and after the logs were left sitting in a dark closet for 3 months. Slices were taken, dried in an oven, and crushed in a mortar and pestle, then extracted with methanol. There was no significant difference in mescaline content. In one experiment, using new growth, the content was higher after sitting in the dark (0.3% ->0.6% ), while the other was the opposite, 0.4% before and 0.3% after. It is most likely that these differences are due to sampling error, due to differences in the location of the samples on the plant and variation in the content of green flesh in the sample. When the thick bases of the plants were examined by HPLC, there was no difference at all between freshly cut cactus and after sitting for several months in the dark (0.2% in all cases). This seems to suggest that the highest alkaloid content is in the new growth, not in the older base, in contrast to some suggestions earlier in this thread. I think that genetics is the most important factor in cactus potency. Other San Pedros have been tested as high as 2%.

This is very valuable information you're providing trypt2fun. Thanks. I wondered about how the enzymes were incorporated via injection myself (I simply didn't know enough botany to question it, but had heard doping works with mushrooms--but that's in culture). In the new growth, huh? Do you have any ideas about what happens to the, presumably, formerly higher levels in the old growth i.e. do you think mescaline is further metabolized or migrates to areas of new growth, or something else? Have you heard theories as to why that might be the case that could inform a stressing regimen, or do you think all stressing regimens are relatively pointless? Without a doubt genetics is the biggest factor, but of course these guys are hoping for more mileage out of what they already have.

 

[tryp2fun]

This is very valuable information you're providing trypt2fun. Thanks. I wondered about how the enzymes were incorporated via injection myself (I simply didn't know enough botany to question it, but had heard doping works with mushrooms--but that's in culture). In the new growth, huh? Do you have any ideas about what happens to the, presumably, formerly higher levels in the old growth i.e. do you think mescaline is further metabolized or migrates to areas of new growth, or something else? Have you heard theories as to why that might be the case that could inform a stressing regimen, or do you think all stressing regimens are relatively pointless? Without a doubt genetics is the biggest factor, but of course these guys are hoping for more mileage out of what they already have.

You're welcome! Fungi are different than higher plants. Fungi are accustomed to taking in materials from their environments and transforming them. That is the fungal life style, since fungi are not photosynthetic. On the other hand, higher plants make all of their amino acids, sugars, cofactors, etc., from simple inorganic compounds using photosynthesis.

I'm not sure why the new growth cactus has more mescaline, but I can conjecture. It may be that the new growth is more active at synthesis, and the old growth doesn't make it and slowly metabolizes it. The new growth is more frequently attacked by predators (at least in my plants), so that may be consistent with the proposed role of alkaloids as protection from predation. Also, the green flesh is the growing part, and that is where mescaline content is higher. I don't think that it is known exactly where mescaline is made and stored within cells.

 

[Newmoonrecord]

Another note about potency. From what i have heard, indoor grown cacti without UV suffer from a lack of potency. Just figured I'd throw that out there. I'd recommend anyone growing should get ahold of a reptile tanning bulb (yes they exist) that is specifically designed to produce maximum uva and uvb rays.

 

[daysonatrain]

You're welcome! Fungi are different than higher plants. Fungi are accustomed to taking in materials from their environments and transforming them. That is the fungal life style, since fungi are not photosynthetic. On the other hand, higher plants make all of their amino acids, sugars, cofactors, etc., from simple inorganic compounds using photosynthesis.

I'm not sure why the new growth cactus has more mescaline, but I can conjecture. It may be that the new growth is more active at synthesis, and the old growth doesn't make it and slowly metabolizes it. The new growth is more frequently attacked by predators (at least in my plants), so that may be consistent with the proposed role of alkaloids as protection from predation. Also, the green flesh is the growing part, and that is where mescaline content is higher. I don't think that it is known exactly where mescaline is made and stored within cells.

huh? i thought older cactus has a much higher mescaline concentration? ive heard that many times, even in this thread.

 

[tryp2fun]

huh? i thought older cactus has a much higher mescaline concentration? ive heard that many times, even in this thread.

I have heard that, too, but I have not seen any published or unpublished analytical data to support it. It seems to be just an anecdotal report that gets repeated so long that everybody thinks that it is true. I was just reporting the results of HPLC chemical analysis, which was also surprising to me. The analysis was done by analyzing the content of the tip and the base of the same plants, so it should be reliable.