UK Ebay - I use Parafilm M, seems to be the best choice. Either from UK or China

0.75% of alkaloids estimate is without any curing time, stated as the HCl salts. This was done early on when I was still using A/B extraction before I had heard of curing.

But the stored and partially rotted one that I mentioned was from the same strain, and it yielded 4% as the malic acid salt. The malic acid salt is about half as potent as the HCl salt however, so that is about 2% yield which is still exceptional.

Yields on the uncured cactus might be higher if performed today. The 0.75% was obtained years ago when I was still using various alcohols for the initial extractions. Alcohols are not good solvents to use to pull M-malate out of the cactus, as M-malate is not very soluble in alcohols.

I still see people using alcohol for their extractions because of the persistent myth that alcohol is a good solvent (it is a good solvent for natural DMT). Pure alcohol would only be a good solvent if the M was in free base form in the cactus. Alkaloids don't exist in nature in free base form, they are always bound to plant acids. Yet some people still claim to get good results with alcohol. I think the only reason they're getting any yields is most likely due to the water content in the vodka or whatever they are using.

That really sounds interesting!



I believe the fact mescaline is within the plants in the malate form is new to a lot of people. And can convince them to adjust their extraction strategies...

Some update on the experiments done about 4-5 days ago...

Few hours with removed parafilm and what a damage!

Definitely it is not a good idea to remove the parafilm after 4 days. Next time I will leave the graft aside without light 7 days rather than 4 and keep the parafilm attached when put back to light.

Some pictures ...
the areole-areole grafts seem to survive (2 of 3)

Both areole to top have survived...

The areole to tricho grafts seem to be good, the parafilm removed three days ago. The grafts always shrink a bit and change color, but this returns to normal within few days if the graft has taken.

Here is funny slab graft. I have failed to graft it properly, but it has taken. It took quite long to pup, but finally it did

And finally the most potent one I have. It was almost dead cutting, refused to root. It was put into darkness and left there for more than a year. It made one very small pup (for me unbeliavable), so I took it, cut horizontally into two halfs and grafted, one half upside down. Usually grafted half started to grow within a week or two. The second after month and a half. Here they are...

Hi Pete. Which clone is this that is your most potent?

Pete I want to share an observation with you that I've made. I'm not totally sure about; its still just a hypothesis. But I think there might be something to it, and maybe it could help you with your selection process.

I've been noticing that my strongest Trichos all have small-sized areoles. Its the only distinctive physical trait that they share in common. My bridgesiis all are strong and all have small areoles. Both of my scop clones are strong and have small areoles. My most promising pachanois are the one with small areoles. TBM Short is supposedly the strongest Tricho, and it has almost no areoles.

It just seems that the less surface space of the cactus is dedicated to areole space, the more likely that the cactus will be rich in active alkaloids.

I am sure that there will be some trichos with large areoles that are strong, and some with small areoles that are weak. But as a general rule of thumb it seems to me that the strong trichos tend to have small areoles.


EDIT:
And if you look online at photos of SS02, Ogun, Landfill, Lee, and many others that are known to be strong you will see that they have the small areole phenotype.

I think that Trichos have 2 defenses against being eaten: spines and bitter-tasting alkaloids. Small areoles mean that the plant would have less available space to produce spines, and so might compensate by producing more alkaloids.


FINAL EDIT:
In other words, for selection purposes it is probably better to keep plants that have small areoles like we see on SS02 or on a Spineless Scopulicola and not to keep plants that have large areoles like we would see on a Cuzcoensis.

Hey Fox,

it is #77 here. This cutting was acquired from some EU vendor marked for constumption, as it was in very bad state. As I've written, it was in the dirt for whole summer without any rooting, so I thought it was dead. I don't have an idea what it is.

Interesting. I have never paid attention to how the areoles look like, so don't have any info or data for this correlation.

Your conclusion may be affected by the fact that mescaline in the plant (mescaline malate - according to drnocturne) is not bitter.

Maybe others might check their plants where the potency is known and tell whether they see the same correlation...?

The form mescaline takes in the plant isn't bitter, and in any event is present in too low a concentration to have any effect on the taste buds, so in that respect the function in the plant isn't to deter consumption due to taste. There are plenty of other compounds in there that taste nasty enough to do that on their own.

Why a plant would go to all the trouble to make this molecule is still somewhat of a mystery. It may be that animals don't like the psychoactive effects or it may be some type of insect deterrent.

Recent studies have shown the psilocybin dampens the appetite of flies and other insects.

It doesnt really matter if mescaline is bitter tasting or not. I dont have enough info to know what the case is regarding that.

But basically these cacti defend themselves with spines and with chemicals. Some of those chemicals taste bad. Some make an animal sick or disoriented.

What I'm observing is that areole size may be a good indicator for how heavily a cactus is relying on its chemical defenses. Because we see that spine length is a variable trait. Individuals within a population will have varying degrees of spine length. But areole size may be a more important factor than spine length when it comes to a plant and it's offsprings' potential ability to "spine up" for protection from predators. Trichos with small areoles may be naturally predisposed to rely more on chemical protections.

But this really is just a guess as to why Trichos with small areoles seem more likely to be potent. Regardless of the cause, I am observing a correlation between small areole size and good potency.

I see. I will try to identify whether such correlation exists in the future. Honestly I don't have an idea how the areolas looked like on my plants so I can't say whether there even were smaller and bigger ones

Its something worth paying attention to.

Here is another example:

https://troutsnotes.com/pachanoi-pachanot/

If you look at the photos from Trout's compasiron of Pachanoi and Pachanot you will see that one of the main features that distinguishes the Pachanot (PC) from true Pachanois is that the Pachanot has larger areoles. And of course it is weaker than the true Pachanois.

This is really interesting idea, greyfox. Could you please provide some examples of small and big areoles?

Small areoles

Large areoles