Hi,
I'm not sure what you mean by "mucilage separated from the cactus brew".

Mucilage is a thick slime that does not easily separate. In its raw form it's impossible to filter it out because it is a gel.

Mucilage is composed of pectin which is made up of long-chain polysaccharides. In the case of pectin this is a backbone of galacturonic acid with sidechains of various neutral sugars mainly D-galactose, L-arabinose and D-xylose. When pectin is heated in water, hydrolysis occurs to effect the separation of the larger polysaccharide molecule into these component parts.

That's why pressure cooking, or heating a brew for long periods breaks down the mucilage and allows the brew to become thin enough to filter out the remaining solids. The mucilage breaks down chemically to its individual component molecules and the bitter components end up in the water. After extraction with water, any remaining solids (mainly cellulose) are no longer bitter and they are thrown away.

Mucilage is just one component that contribute to bitterness along with tannins, polyphenols, flavonoids, isoflavones, and glucosinolates.

Perhaps you are confusing mucilage, the slimy gel fraction of the cactus flesh with cellulose, the insoluble cell wall solids that remain after brewing. But anyway in this context we are talking about licking the raw cactus. We are not discussing what happens in a brew.

Pete,
I'm not sure what to tell you if a microdose bioassay is not an option. Perhaps you could crowd-source it, have a working group of enthusiasts willing to make a brew once a week and report the findings. I've been microdosing on and off for the past couple of years. A threshold-effect confirming microdose does not interfere with normal daily activities such as work, driving, and social interaction.

It may not be "public knowledge" that one cannot determine potency through taste alone, but if you talk to some of the more knowledgeable members on the various Trichocereus forms, they will confirm that there is zero correlation. I think what has happened is that many people simply assumed correlation without doing any testing, or they heard something like. "I had this cactus that was really potent and it tasted very bitter" and that spread as an internet myth. This is an assumption of causation without verification.

There is very little out there discussing the fact that it is the malate salt, not the HCl or sulfate salt, that is the natural form in the cactus. Few are aware of this and virtually no one has tasted pure M-Malate. You can't taste it in the context of raw or cooked cactus, so a false assumption was made long ago that whatever bitterness was present correlated to potency when no such correlation exists.

Whether you are able to test them or not, these are beautiful plants to just grow and have around. I hope you don't discard any from here on out! There are lots of people that would be willing to take them off your hands if you have too many.

By the way, what are the specific parents of the hybrids that you are growing?

drnocturne, yes, I didn't have an idea of the real form of mescaline within the plant. I don't remember I have ever read about mescaline malate.

So do you have any information of the form of M-malate when dry? Is it solid? Does it absorb any humidity from the air? What is the water solubility? It would be interesting to try to create this salt.

Regarding the myth of the correlation between bitter taste and potency, I can't evaluate the facts you have provided (regardless how real they sound) but we have empirical evidence that is indicating those facts are real.

The list planned for this in-door season is :

Trichocereus peruvianus 'Rosei#1' x Trich. peruvianus 'John'
Trichocereus macrogonus 'Fields' x Trich. peruvianus 'John'
Trichocereus bridgesii 'Psycho0' x Trich. peruvianus 'John'
Trichocereus peruvianus 'John' x Trich. macrogonus 'Fields'
T. bridgesii 'Sina’ x T. peruvianus 'Sharxx Blue’
T. peruvianus ‘Rosei #1’ X T. peruvianus ‘Sharxx Blue’
T. peruvianus ‘Rosei #2’ X T. peruvianus ‘Sharxx Blue’
T. bridgesii ‘Tig’ X T. peruvianus ‘Sharxx Blue’
T. bridgesii ‘Psycho0’ X T. peruvianus ‘Rosei #1’
T. macrogonus 'Fields’ x T. peruvianus ‘Rosei #2
T. peruvianus 'Rosei #2’ x T. peruvianus 'Rosei #1’
Trichocereus Peruvianus 1
Trichocereus Peruvianus 2
Bridgesii Bertha x Huarazensis(37)
Huarazensis x LumberJack(56)
Huarazensis x Pach Yowie(344)
LumberJack x Bridgesii Eileen(723)
LumberJack x Bridgesii Bertha(224)
Pach Torres & Torres x Huarazensis(656)
Pach Torres & Torres x Pach Yowie(658 )
Trichocereus peruvianus 'Sharxx Blue' x Trich. bridgesii 'Ben'
Huarazensis x Scopulicola(42)
T. peruvianus ‘Rosei #1’ X T. pachanoi ‘Yowie’
Huarazensis x Pach Torres & Torres(544)
T. peruvianus 'Rosei #2’ x T. peruvianus 'Short Spine'
Trichocereus scopulicola x Trich. pachanoi 'Yowie'
Trichocereus peruvianus 'Rosei#1' x Trich. pachanoi 'Fields'
Trichocereus peruvianus 'Rosei#2' x Trich. sp. 'J3'
Trichocereus peruvianus 'John' x Trich. scopulicola
Trichocereus peruvianus 'Rosei#1' x Trich. bridgesii 'Ben'
Trichocereus peruvianus 'Rosei#2' x Trich. scopulicola
Trichocereus bridgesii(6341)
Trichocereus pachanoi(2980)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Anra, Ancash, Peru)(8308 )
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Chancha, Ancash, Peru)(8310)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Collahuasi, Ancash, Peru)(8309)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Mal Paso, Ancash, Peru)(8306)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Mancos, Ancash, Peru)(8304)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Quechuas, Ancash, Peru)(8307)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Tarica, Ancash, Peru)(8303)
Trichocereus pachanoi 'santaensis' (Wuallac, Ancash, Peru)(8305)
Trichocereus peruvianus(2983)
Trichocereus peruvianus (Cochao, Ancash, Peru)(8300)
Trichocereus peruvianus (Huantar, Ancash, Peru)(8299)
Trichocereus peruvianus (Huari, Ancash, Peru)(8298 )
Trichocereus peruvianus (Huarimayo, Ancash, Peru)(8297)
Trichocereus peruvianus (Lucma, Ancash, Peru)(8302)
Peru2 x Huarazensis(48 )

Sorry for being unclear in my post.
You are right with description of mucilage composition, properties (I think except taste) and hydrolysis during brewing. Of course, filtering of mucilage is impossible in water-based brew, as it is soluble in water and thus we can not separate it physically by mechanical filtering.

But this changes in presence of alcohol, in which mucilage (even partially hydrolysed) is not soluble.

So, when you brew cactus in water just to phase when it becomes more liquidy and workable and separate it from plant mass (cellulose), you can add alcohol to the tea and mucilage separates. After drying, it looks like common pectin and when water is added, it becomes again a gel. And has a neutral taste.

According to this, I think mucilage is not contributing to the bitter taste of cactus, even in raw form.

In addition, there is another simple and obvious evidence against bitterness of cactus mucilage:
All cacti would be bitter as it is common component of cactus plant body.

But I agree with the rest of your claims.

M-malate is a clear white solid composed of needle-like crystals. It is not hydroscopic. It is very soluble in water, insoluble in ethanol and isopropyl alcohol.

doubledog, you may be right although you are still discussing cooked pectin while I was referring to raw mucilage. Any thinning of the brew would indicate that the mucilage has already begun to break down. From info I saw here she describes pectin as being "very bitter".

Also, pectin is soluble in water whereas mucilage forms slimy masses, (the famous "cactus slime" that is so disgusting). Mucilage swells in water but is insoluble in water 11.4.2.1 Cactus mucilage

In any event, it is other compounds in the cactus besides M-malate that create the bitter taste. Probably tannins and other things mentioned earlier.

However thanks for describing your method of precipitating pectin out of solution with alcohol as it could be a useful step in the purification process.

A lot of very valuable information drnocturne! Many thanks for that! I hope you won't be bothered when I try to get as much of the information from you as possible
That's salt is tempting. Malic acid is very easy to find and buy. For rectal ROA and higher doses it might be more friendly.
Why people are not back-salting with that and rather use HCl? As a weak acid, question is how readily it will form the M-salt when back-salting. The next question is the purification. It may differ from HCl purification as we know it.
These pictured crystals are made by you? If so, I would say you should be able to answer both back-salting and purification of the M-salt...

Pete, to answer your questions:
The reason that malic acid is not used to salt out the M is that malic acid is a solid. One would need to titrate the exact amount, otherwise any overage would result in the product being contaminated with malic acid. With HCl any excess acid is a gas that merely evaporates away.

Another reason is that malic acid has a very high molecular weight. The resulting M-malate is less potent on a weight basis (but you get more so it really doesn't matter).

Finally, these xtals were not technically "made" by me, they were made by the plant! They were not obtained via A/B extraction, there was no basifying and no salting with malic acid. They came directly from the plant after a lengthy purification and recrystallization process that removed everything else. This is how I am able to detail the taste of the salt as it exists in the plant in its pure, chemically unaltered form, with everything else stripped away.

Lot of interesting, but also contradictory infos over internet.
To be honest, I wonder how pectin could be described as bitter, when it is used in making jams. From my experience, pectin as common jam additive is definitely not bitter.

Separation of mucilage from the cactus tea is very useful when cactus resin is being made.

Of course, pectin/mucilage properties are just a side topic regarding this thread as bitterness is most likely from other components.
Attached some paper with more infos on cactus mucilage:

drnocturne, sorry I am not a native speaker so sometimes not using the right words. I was of course not suspecing you of doing mescaline synthesis

Obtaining mescaline from the plant directly without changing its form may be interesting, though I believe it is not an easy task. What is important though even for purification after usual extraction is the selection of solvent(s) for re-x. Have you got any ideas for M-malate?

Pete,
I never took your message to imply that I was doing synthesis. What I took it to mean was that you had assumed I was doing a traditional two phase A/B extraction and then salting the freebase with malic acid to obtain the M-malate.

The procedure I developed doesn't use any organic solvents, not even limolene because there is no two phase separatory funnel step. It is relatively easy actually, just somewhat time consuming.

One day I plan to write a book similar in format to Dr. Shulgin's PIKAL revealing all, detailing my data and procedures and how I got there. Until then I'm keeping things under wraps, this is the first time I've even talked about it to anyone and I've already said more than I had intended.

Right now I am in a similar dilemma to you in that like you, I am screening hundreds of different named strains for their potential. I'm using the microdose bioassay method to do the initial screening. (Unlike you I am using plants grown from cuttings and it takes years in many cases to obtain enough biomass.)
My dilemma is that self experimentation takes too much time, and I don't have any way to safely enlist others' help in this effort. I could microdose up to 2-3 times per week, but I don't really want to, and I end up only doing it once or twice a month.

Took me few years to just preliminary assess my cacti collection by bioassay method, and it is much smaller collection than yours. To speed this process somehow is the reason why I watched this thread carefully.
Wish you a lot of time and some good friend who could participate.

I too have been bioassaying various cacti to assess their potency. A couple of things I've observed are that 1) Bridgesii have all been strongly potent and 2) as my plants get bigger and older the potency increases.

Has anyone else noticed this? I am pretty confident that these 2 observations are accurate, at least with the cacti that I've sampled.

Grey Fox, I also have noticed that bridgesii have all been strongly potent (even 4 year old seedlings) but I also don't like the quality of the experience nearly as much. Bridgesii gives me an unpleasant hangover for several days after, during which I just don't feel "right" for 3 to 4 days, and this is with a very low dose.

Bridgesii is known to have some mild MAO inhibitors in it (the flavonols kaempferol and quercetin) that supposedly potentiate the effects. Some tests have shown that bridgesii is relatively low in M content and that it is these potentiators that made the experience strong. Perhaps it is these MAO inhibitors that don't agree with me.

In any event, I dislike the effect bridgesii has on me, particularly the aftereffects, and because of this I have had to curtail my bioassays on that species. I find peruvianus to be a very "clean" experience with no hangover (if anything, a positive afterglow the next day) and pachanoi to be the most "spiritual" experience that elicits the most positive feelings of compassion and being "at one" with others.

Regarding your observation that plants get stronger as they age, this has been the running consensus among many who have remarked that the most potent cuts come from old stands. For this reason I don't know how accurate it would be to be attempting to determine potency from young seedlings that have not had enough time to develop into their full potential.

drnocturne, your entry is really very interesting. I understand it is not time yet to publish your findings, but still I am pretty sure many people would be interested in that info. So maybe one day...

Microdosing is really a no-go for me, as my job is not compatible with altered states of mind. I will have to go the way of mini-extractions and accept that test of one specimen takes half an hour of my time. I can hardly test 500 specimens a year as I had originally planned, so the strategy will have to be adjusted and much bigger part of my growbox will be used for actual M production rather than for search for the best genes.

Nonetheless if you don't mind sharing, I would love to stay in contact and exchange our findings or maybe more.

doubledog, I am afraid that the only way how to speed it up is a cooperation. It is very tough task for one person :/

Regarding the correlation between the age and potency, almost all the mini-extractions used for testing the correlation of bitter taste and potency I have done recently were done with new growth from pups started this year. I will have to dispose all the mother plants this autumn (cause of lack of storage space for dormancy) so if I find energy and time to proceed this type of test, I might do the same extraction for few of them with their mother plants which are at least 2 years older and already went through dormancy.

Drnocturne - I have also noticed that there is a qualitative difference to the bridgesii experience. For me bridgesii is more intense and challenging than the other Trichos. The physical side effects like muscle tremors and stomach discomfort seem to be worse with bridgesii. Bridgesii trips also tend to be more visual.

With pachanoi or scopulicola or peruvianus I experience more euphoria and less physical discomfort, but the overall experience tends to be less intense and visual.

I have had very good results with combining bridgesii together with scop or pach when making tea. 1 part bridgesii to 2 parts scopulicola is just about my favorite ratio for making tea right now. It consistently gives a euphoric trip, but with greater intensity and visuals, and the physical side effects are not so bad. This may be something that you want to try. Take care.


Pete - I would be interested to see the results of that experiment. Thanks for doing all of this research for the community.

Pete,
It would be a huge wasted to dispose of your mother plants! I have a greenhouse for winter storage and would be willing to pay the cost of postage to save those plants. Perhaps we can come up with something I could give you in return.

Send me a PM.

If you guys will coordinate together and find a way to collaborate, I seriously think you need to talk with the board admins to let us set up a paypal contribution method or something to help you absorb the cost and encourage your efforts-- I can't give much, but I can absolutely give something-- and I think this kind of effort is a benefit to everyone...