Navigation

Back to Kada's garden

Lophophora williamsii and mescaline production.

There are numerous reports, articles and books discussing all aspects of mescaline in the cactus Lophophora williamsii, here we will discuss some of this.

Quantity of mescaline in Lophophora williamsii

[1] According to James Duke, Lophophora williamsii contains 50,000ppm alkaloids. There are of course many alkaloids in Lophophora williamsii, not just mescaline.

[2] An article discussing the taxonomy of the Lophophora Genus also makes note of quantity of mescaline in Lophophora williamsii. They state 15-30% of total alkaloids is mescaline.

If you use James Duke's 50,000 ppm alkaloids and work out 15-30% of that, we get 7,500-15,000 ppm mescaline in Lophophora williamsii. That is 0.75%-1.50% mescaline.

Analysis of Controlled Substances: "680!V1010 mg per 100 g of fresh plant material [9]." 0.68-1.01% fresh. Their reference is "Determination of phenethylamines in hallucinogenic cactus species by HPLC with photodiode array detection"

Determination of Mescaline in Hallucinogenic Cactaceae by Ion-Interaction HPLC: The average amounts of mescaline found in Lophophora williamsii were 2.55 mg per gram (fresh).

Mescaline production in Lophophora williamsii: What causes it?

This is a very greay area that has not been studied that much, unfortunately.

In a short study dealing with Trichocereus pachanoi and mescaline translocation in grafts [3]. This study carried out (a fairly small sample I may add) grafts of Trichocereus pachanoi and T. spachianus. Both species were used as the root stock (the bottom part of a graft, used for its roots) and the scion (the top part placed onto the rootstock). Both species were tested for mescaline on their own (control) and T. pachanoi was found to contain mescaline and T. spachianus was not. The T. pachanoi control, root stock and scion were all found to have mescaline. The T. spachianus control, root stock and scion all contained none. This shows that even if a T. pachanoi is growing another cactus on top (acting as a root stock), the alkaloids do not translocate into the scion, and same the other way around. When T. pachanoi was the scion grafted onto T. spachianus, the T. spachianus root stock did not have any mescaline.

Your wondering, why is this guy talking about Trichocereus? This page is about Lophophora! Well, there are no studies, at least lab work that is published. So it is not a good idea to take this info as solid for Lophophora species. There are many questions raised even with that study, but I feel its an important paper to at least give mention to! These kind of experiments are relatively straightforward to accomplish so long as you have the ability to detect and measure mescaline (ie. chromatography).

Lophophora williamsii grafts have been bioassayed (tested the old fashioned way) and have been found to still contain psychoactive principles. There are many variables to think about when doing these studies! So many variables can potentially change levels of chemicals of plants. Light, water, temperature, age, genetics, size, nutrition, stress etc etc. Again, the biggest drawback for many people doing these tests is the time/knowledge/equipment it takes not only detect the presence of mescaline but also the quantity.

It has been shown (unpublished personal conversations) that Lophophora williamsii grafted to Stenocereus pruinosus, Myrtillocactus geometrizans and Trichocereus pachanoi is still Hallucinogenic is similar doses (dry weight) as seed grown plants of similar age and growing conditions. This leads to a likely possibilty that mescaline is not produced in the roots, but rather the stem. It should be pointed out that the grafts bioassayed were grafted when already mature (flowering) and 3-4+ cm in diameter. It seems worth while to test grafts that were grafted quite young (under a week from germinating). We will be writing some experiments and procedures for this, but when dealing with Lophophora, these kinds of experiments take many years to accomplish (they grow slow!).

In native American use the crowns (stems, green parts) are the only parts used. Roots, seeds, flowers, fruits and wool never seem to be utilized. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of years of human testing (Native American peoples) has shown this, and although this may not be concrete as far as western science is concerned, it seems reasonable that mescaline is primarily stored in the stem. With the few experiments we have done and the Trichocereus mescaline translocation paper, the pieces seem to fit together quite well. But more studies must be done to prove these theories

Mescaline production & Environmental Factors

Due to the nature of this kind of study, one really must use specific techniques to quantify the results. Bioassay simply is not a reliable way of saying anything except "active or not". We base this mostly on a study done with Lophophora williamsii tissue cultures [2].

Photoperiod did seem to affect not only mescaline production but alkaloid production in general as well as overall plant growth (the later ahs been studied a fair bit in other plant species). To summarize what Obermayer studied (Keep in mind this is tissue culture). 0 hours of light surprisingly produced more mescaline than a 24 hour photoperiod, however less overall alkaloids. This seems interesting as many people claim with hallucinogenic Trichocereus that plants cut and left in low conditions for a month or more are more potent. This raises many questions, one being could a period of no light reduce the other, more toxic, alkaloids (like pellotine) and still have a worth while concentration of mescaline?

Both 8 hour and 16 hour photoperiods produced more mescaline and alkaloids than ) and 24 hour photo periods (8 hours had slightly more mescaline, and 16 hours had slightly more total alkaloids). The real difference observed with a 8 vs 16 hour photoperiod was the fresh and dry weight. 8 hours growth index: 7.09 (fresh), 7.10 (dry). 16 hours growth index: 10.63 (fresh), 10.36 (dry), 24 hours growth index: 11.05 (fresh), 10.76 (dry). This makes sense, more light means more growth, no surprise. Looking at the mescaline quantity between 8, 16, and 24 hours photoperiods better candidates for cultivation as the basic mass of the product will be far more worth while. Given that 24 hours of light noticeable affects mescaline production in a negative manner, it would seem logical to select an 8-16 hour photoperiod. This also raises the question that mescaline could perhaps, at least partly, be produced at night (dark), as we saw the 0, 8, 16 hour photoperiods still had relatively high mescaline concentrations.

Other questions could also be asked such as relation to CAM plants. These plants are adapted to "close up" in the day when it is really hot and easy to loose water, at night they will open up their stomata and carry on their processes. Could mescaline production have something to do with this? These are some important things that will hopefully be studied in the future!

Light colour also seemed to affect mescaline production quite a lot. 4 spectrums were tested under a 16 hour photoperiod, "blue, green, red and far red". Assuming most plants grow poorly in the green spectrum, it seems logical that this spectrum was the worst mescaline producer and growth speed. Oddly, it was not! Blue was the best spectrum for plant growth (fresh and dry weights), with red being the worst (who saw that coming?)! As far as growth went, blue was best in dry weight, but not fresh weight, Which makes us thing perhaps more compact/slower growth. Green, surprisingly, was second for dry weight followed by far red then red. Fresh weights revealed something of importance, which we will mention shortly. Fresh weights were: highest to lowest: far red, blue, green, red. When comparing fresh to dry weights, the difference is mostly water, which is not of use on this page. What we got from this study was that less fresh weight and more dry weight (blue, green, red) is that the plants were not as "pumped up" with water as the ones with less dry weight and more fresh weight (far red)

When looking at the end mescaline product by quantity, red seemed the most numerous (2.20) followed by far red (1.27), blue (1.12), green (0.78). The red spectrum dry weight was about 62% as much as the blue, however the red had about 96% more mescaline than the blue (that is almost double). Given growth vs mescaline it would seem red is the preferred spectrum, but most plants are in a mix which adds countless variables.

One possible method for experimentation in producing higher mescaline content using the above information is to grow the plants under the blue spectrum 16 hours a day, and pre harvest (say a month) switch them to red and about a week before testing place them in the dark. These things are certainly worthy of further experimentation!

Mescaline production & Variable Factors

There are many variables that come into play in all aspects of plant growth, and it is important to try and control these when studying them. Some probably variables are listed below.

Temperature

Light colour (wavelength), intensity, photoperiod

Nutrients

Humidity

Soil types (perhaps composition, ph etc)

Water (hard vs soft, frequency, schedules etc)

Age

Growth method (tissue culture methods, seed grown, grafted)

Pest response

Plant areas (where is stronger?)

Solitary vs grouped

Genetics

Wild populations

Unharvested plants vs Plants that have been harvested already (stress, regrowth?)

And you came here thinking you'll actually get an answer. No such luck.

References

[1] Dr. Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases: Chemicals and their Biological Activities in: Lophophora williamsii (LEMAIRE) COULT. (Cactaceae) -- Peyote "ALKALOIDS Plant 50,000 ppm; DUKE1992A No activity reported."

[2] Obermayer Jr., William R. Enhancement of Growth and Alkaloid Production in Tissue Cultures of Peyote, Lophophora williamsii (Lemaire) Coulter. (1989)

[3] PUMMANGURA. S., and J. L. MCLAUGHLIN. Cactus Alkaloids. LI. Lack of Mescaline Translocation in Grafted Trichocereus.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]