POLL: SUBSTRATE = CUBIE POTENCY ??

[~Hippie3]

ok, got myself in an argument with some newbie-know-it-alls
[and a few old-school-know-it-alls, too]
over the issue
of substrate's relation to the product's potency-
to whit
the claim was made that
brf yields weak shrooms
and that horse poo were the most potent.
they say
more nutes = more potency
and claim that hpoo has more of the right nutes
in the right form
than any other substrate.
now
i say horseshit.
not the substrate,
their opinions.

but what say ye ?
cast yer vote above plz.

[reverend trips]

It's all good, brf makes awesome shrooms!

[~Hippie3]

edited to clarify
i'm talking about cubensis.
as Anno of Shroomery correctly and succintly pointed out
the most potent mushrooms of all
grow on wood.

which is less nutritious than any of those listed.

[anticheffy]

I think a shroom is a shroom is a shroom, cubensisly speaking, and an eq grown on a cake is the same as an eq grown on compost etc....

Different subs arguable produce more quantity, or at a greater speed etc, but the shrooms themselves are no different. The idea of potentcy is all relative to the user, the setting, the quantity consumed. I am 260 lbs and 2 grams is more than enough for me whereas a 180 lb man might be able to take an eighth and be just as high as me. Dosing is a personal thing and not really qualifyable..........

[SharkieJones]

I've worked with Horse poo, and Brn rice flour and the shrooms were potent on both. In fact back in the day when I was a kid with no idea about shroom growing, the shit I used to get on the street didn't hold a torch to the stuff I grew on PF jars with brn rice flour. So I wonder what they were using to grow back then?

[Lazlo]

I chose compost, yet BRF grown mushrooms have always tripped me out very well. So anyone that states that mushrooms grown off of a rice substrate aren't as potent as manure or compost based substrates are incorrect or inexperienced. There might be a slight difference but, not enough to make that claim. The majority of the mushrooms that I cultivate are grown on horse manure or REAL compost based substrates. IMHO, there's not that much of a NOTICEABLE difference in the the 2 substrates I prefer to grow on, versus borwn rice substrates as far as potency is concerned.
I saw Hippie's argument on another forum. Hippie is right IMHO...
Edit: I shouldn't say straw is a weak medium. I just prefer to stear clear of it.

On a side note; Agar has a lot of followers there. He is one of the best cultivators that I know. But he is just of the opinion that horse manure and compost is the top notch medium for cubensis as far as potency. But, he's been a bulk grower since day one. He'll even tell ya that he's never even made a BRF substrate to cultivate mushrooms. I've never heard him state that there was a difference in BRF versus horse manure or compost based mediums like the argumentive people are making it seem.

On another side note; the hardest and most intense trip I ever encountered were some mushrooms grown on standard BRF.

[SharkieJones]

So do you feel that straw creates weaker mushrooms then?

[~Hippie3]

Originally Posted by Lazlo

On a side note; Agar has a lot of followers there. He is one of the best cultivators that I know. But he is just of the opinion that horse manure and compost is the top notch medium for cubensis as far as potency. But, he's been a bulk grower since day one. He'll even tell ya that he's never even made a BRF substrate to cultivate mushrooms. I've never heard him state that there was a difference in BRF versus horse manure or compost based mediums like the arguementive people are making it seem.

that's nice, i suppose,
but entirely irrelevant
to the question.
i wasn't picking a fight with him,
just people who were mis-stating the facts.

[Lazlo]

Not irrelelvant at all. I'm stating this because people tend to make comments based upon anothers opinion. Someone they look up to. Making statements based on browsing in a forum, rather than hands on experience.

Originally Posted by SharkieJones

So do you feel that straw creates weaker mushrooms then?

From my experiences, yes.

Now to be on topic and not about Hippie's argument, I will agree with Agar on the potency being effected by nitrates available in a food source for DUNG loving mushrooms. IMO, the more nitrates that are available for DUNG loving mushrooms (without the fruiting or colonizing being effected), the better they are in potency. I see what Anno's talking about with the WOOD loving mushrooms, but these are carbon based substrate feeders. Big difference.
Feed a dung loving mushroom a carbon based substrate low in nitrates such as straw, exc., the potency is poor IME's. Very poor compared to substrates containing higher nitrates and proteins. This is just my opinion now... I'm done..

[~Hippie3]

opinions are like
well, you know.

there are 21 of them already expressed in the poll above
and so far the voting is not confirming
your/agar's "opinion".

in fact right now
it's running 3:1 in favor of
'it's all good'.

the bottom line
is that while we abound in opinions
there is a distinct lack of evidence
to affirm that any particular substrate
consistently yields more potent shrooms.

[viraljimmy]

I think I remember PF saying brown rice
makes more potent mushrooms.
Anybody remember that?

[~Hippie3]

yep.
this issue has long been hotly debated
but never resolved.
hopefully this poll will help
create some data useful
in assessing the general grower consensus.

[don't know]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

yep.
this issue has long been hotly debated
but never resolved.
hopefully this poll will help
create some data useful
in assessing the general grower consensus.

You can grow CUBIES on wood. The very first time I grew was on naturally composted horse shit that was in pine wood chips (from a stable). There was very little horse shit in the compost (found under a pile out in the field), but the compost was gorgeous sweet smelling blackish stuff. The mycelium loved it (from spores) and I got really nice big shrooms growing out of quart jars of the compost.

As far as the potency - I eventually turned my attention to Brown rice because if worked great, was easy to deal with, instantly available and tripped me out hard.

But I have hear (not from my experience) that straw grown cubies are weak compared to cow shit and straw compost. Now that makes a lot of sense because there is a big difference between plain wheat straw and composted cow shit and wheat straw. So why should the cubies be the same?

The Professor

[~Hippie3]

hi prof!
been well ?
you still of the opinion that brf gives the most potency ?

and sure,
cubies love dung
it's their natural habitat.
but i'm of the opinion
that the shroom doesn't care where it gets its' nutes,
it'll use anything it can digest.
and once digested
potency naturally follows

[microscopyuseonly]

All I know is that I've never seen weak product come from poo but have seen very weak grown on straw (enourmous yeilds of bunk). Never even thinking about someone elses post, this is the evidence I have to work with..... Havn't seen grain only style yet.Seen

[the_chosen_one]

Found this on NW Botanicals page that RR posted in regards to snake venom. I know it's for cordyceps but I found it interesting none the less. Especially the part about millet.

SUBSTRATE:
The substrate of choice for most Chinese growers is a liquid media based upon silkworm residue, with added carbohydrates and minerals. This seems a logical choice, since this mushroom is found in nature growing on insects. Dried silkworm bodies are the by-product of an existing industry and have little other use. Therefore they are readily available and cheap. This silkworm-based substrate seems to yield a relatively high quality product. The only problem with silkworm- residue based substrate is that in the United States, the FDA requirements are for mycelial products to be produced on a normally consumed human food source. Silkworms do not fit into that category. They are also not available as a raw material source to most of the worlds Cordyceps cultivators. The most usual substrate for Japanese and American growers is rice. It was determined in our trials that rice is not a suitable substrate for Cordyceps production if the target medicinal compounds are considered. Rice does not allow the full range of secondary metabolites to be expressed by the fungus, and rice grown Cordyceps has tested inferior in all of our analyses of active ingredient. There is rarely any appreciable amount of Adenosine or Cordycepin present in rice-grown Cordyceps. Furthermore, there are growth-stunting metabolites which build up in the substrate when Cordyceps is grown on rice, limiting the growth stage to only about 22-24 days, and allowing no more than about 40% of the rice to be converted into mycelial mass. This figure of 40% represents the high end of conversion, and is usually around 25-30%. This means that when Cordyceps is grown on rice then dried and powdered, the resultant product is actually about 60-75% rice flour.
Rye grain is another substrate often used for solid culture, and it yields a higher quality product than rice, as long as a source of vegetable oil as an amendment is added to the growth medium at the time of substrate makeup. The oil provides necessary nutrients, which the organism utilizes for bioactive compound production. Rye has other disadvantages though. The compounds in rye, which give it that characteristic rye smell and taste, are not broken down by the Cordyceps and they concentrate in the final product. This rye taste and smell overcomes the characteristic Cordyceps taste and smell, and even though the resultant product is of better quality than the rice grown mycelium, there are certain perceptual problems that needs to be overcome by the buyer to make this an economical alternative. Rice-grown Cordyceps may seem like a better product to the average buyer because the rice does not mask the characteristic Cordyceps smell and taste. Most buyers in the health supplements industry tend to purchase bulk products on perception and faith rather than requiring an independent analysis. Rye also has growth-limiting factors, which causes the Cordyceps growth to stunt at about 28-30 days, although this can be overcome to a slight degree with the addition of about 1% ground oyster shell buffer to the medium at time of make-up. We tried many other sources of calcium, but they did not seem to work as well as the oyster shell calcium.
Millet is a very good choice of substrate when it is available. It has no strong taste or smell of it’s own, it does not stunt the growth to any significant degree and it allows for the full expression of the secondary metabolites by the organism. It has another problem though, which is the high ratio of chitinous outer husk layer to starch. This outer husk is not broken down and represents a large portion of the final product weight, about 15%. The chitinous husk cannot be removed from the grain ahead of time, since doing so allows the grain to become too sticky during sterilization and a high degree of anaerobic contamination follows. The husk can be removed from the final product through mechanical means such as a time-of-flight separation, or the product can be used for hot water extractions or other processing. Cordyceps does not grow as fast on millet as it does on other grains, but the end product quality is higher.
White milo grain, also known as white kaffir corn or white sorghum is an excellent choice of substrate. The red variety of milo does not work nearly as well as the white variety as a substrate. White milo has all of the best characteristics; it is cheap, it has a high starch/husk ratio, it does not stunt the growth, it allows the full expression of bioactive compounds and has no strong odor or taste of its own to compete with the taste and smell of the resultant Cordyceps product. White milo when used alone however lacks some essential ingredients required for optimum growth by the Cordyceps. The addition of some portion of millet to the white milo speeds up the growth by a factor of 6 times. The millet to milo ratio is optimum at 1 part millet to 4 parts white milo.
Many farmers grow both white milo and the red milo in the same fields, or store them in the same silos, or otherwise do not keep the white and red separated. This is to be avoided when used as a Cordyceps substrate, since a small proportion of the red mixed in with the white can drastically reduce the growth rate and overall quality of the final product.
So from our substrate testing it was determined that the ideal medium for solid substrate growth of Cordyceps is as follows: 1 part white proso millet (husk on) to 4 parts of white milo (husk on), with the addition of 0.8% w/w of ground oyster shell and 1% w/w vegetable oil (peanut oil or soybean oil). Add water to equal 50% total moisture in the sterilized substrate. Precooking the grain mixture for 4-6 hours prior to sterilization tends to trigger a much faster growth response from the Cordyceps. On this medium, Cordyceps can be grown for long periods of time, allowing nearly complete conversion of the substrate to mycelium and the full expression of secondary metabolites from the Cordyceps. The resultant Cordyceps when grown on this substrate is about 3-4% residual grain, or about 96-98% pure mycelium. The real benefit to this method of growing is the capture of the entire compliment of extra-cellular metabolites produced throughout the entire growth process. With the addition of certain growth triggering compounds to this mixture, Cordyceps sinensis is easily induced to fruit in culture without any insect material being present. However the formation of the fruitbody on this medium does not result in any significant change to the analytical chemistry profile.

Like I said....don't know how much of this may apply to cubies if any.

[python]

all of em work well, really i think a persons choice should be based on ease of use and reliability.........

isn't potency also a matter of genetics too..?
thats a big thing with me...cause i've used one
multi-spore syrine with a batch and grown each
jar the same way with the same nutes and some are
potent(usually always the case for me) and then sometimes
they are weak...so i agree that they use whatever nutes are available
and the rest depends on genetics..IMHO...just my two cents..

[the_chosen_one]

Originally Posted by python

all of em work well, really i think a persons choice should be based on ease of use and reliability.........

I agree with Python. I've never seen or noticed enough difference in potency to really worry about it.

[Lazlo]

Ever grown on suitable horse manure or REAL compost before?

[the_chosen_one]

Originally Posted by Lazlo

Ever grown on suitable horse manure or REAL compost before?

Yep. Same only bigger imo. So many factors. And each batch of compost can be a little different than the last. PJ has a good point too.

[~Hippie3]

i've tried every thing there is,
from field gathered cow, horse and even buffalo dung
to bagged manures like 3 n 1, compost too. castings, etc.
i've used hominy, wheat, rye, millet, quinoa [sp.?] barley, you name it.
straw of many kinds, grasses too.
as far as i can tell
it's a crap-shoot potency-wise.
you just never know what you'll get.

Originally Posted by pcsillypj

isn't potency also a matter of genetics too..?
thats a big thing with me...cause i've used one
multi-spore syrine with a batch and grown each
jar the same way with the same nutes and some are
potent(usually always the case for me) and then sometimes
they are weak...so i agree that they use whatever nutes are available
and the rest depends on genetics..IMHO...just my two cents..

This seems to make more sense to me too. I've tried fruits off of 6 of the above food sources and would say more often then not its more strain/genetics that have to do with potency. They are potent no matter what I seem to feed them. But multi-spore of the same strain grown on different substrates will give differing potency in my experiences. Whereas cloned strains grown on different substrates seem to give basically the same potency levels. So maybe it is genetics instead?

I do find the comments about the straw lacking compared to other foods interesting. And that may be true.

What TCO posted, though about another species, needs to be done with cubensis and that would settle any argument of whether a food source affects the potency.

I'd just like to add this as well.


I prefer to use horse manure, not because of potency really, but because it gives the most consistent high potency I want when doing multi spore strains.
I think it is the superior substrate for them in my process of growing. Just like everyone else has a myco process of growing that is all their own and gives the results (potency) they desire.

[malefacter]

I'm with the genetics idea I don't have much experience with mushrooms but i do have a lot of experience with herbs of many type you can alter the light, temp, humidity and soil; hydroponic juice ( or substrate ) to the most optimum and see only slight if Anny change in potency

[the_chosen_one]

Originally Posted by freakachino

I think it is the superior substrate for them in my process of growing. Just like everyone else has a myco process of growing that is all their own and gives the results (potency) they desire.

Bingo! Happy mushies = happy growers. I don't think potency can be narrowed down to one single factor. Although all are important, they must all work in unison for the best results.

[anticheffy]

its all speculation without lab analysis, and the difference just has too many variables without knowing exactly how much psy/gr there actually is with hard numbers.

[python]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

it's a crap-shoot potency-wise.
you just never know what you'll get.

agreed

[python]

Originally Posted by pcsillypj

isn't potency also a matter of genetics too..?
thats a big thing with me...cause i've used one
multi-spore syrine with a batch and grown each
jar the same way with the same nutes and some are
potent(usually always the case for me) and then sometimes
they are weak...so i agree that they use whatever nutes are available
and the rest depends on genetics..IMHO...just my two cents..

genetics are important


when i first saw this poll i thought to myself what is the only way to accurately answer this.........but really it boils down to chemistry..........if we could accurately determine the amount of psilocybin in a mushroom. For instance, if we used a cloned and sterile mushroom that was grown lets say 10 times on each choice of substrate, and if the substrate was exactly the same as far as moisture content, nutrition content, size, texture, etc (everything would have to be the same)......and if we could then measure the amount of psilocybin in the mushrooms grown off each substrate, then we would have an answer as to what really produces the "most potent" mushrooms...(one might also think that cloned mushies off of the exactly same sub should have nearly the same psilocybin % numbers)....

but then we have to think about yield.....IMO most substrates are the same within potency production.....this is where cloning comes in..........we can drastically increase our yield per sq ft or sq inch etc...........which is essentially an increase in potency as we will have more larger/ beefier mushrooms.........

Originally Posted by python

genetics are important


when i first saw this poll i thought to myself what is the only way to accurately answer this.........but really it boils down to chemistry..........if we could accurately determine the amount of psilocybin in a mushroom. For instance, if we used a cloned and sterile mushroom that was grown lets say 10 times on each choice of substrate, and if the substrate was exactly the same as far as moisture content, nutrition content, size, texture, etc (everything would have to be the same)......and if we could then measure the amount of psilocybin in the mushrooms grown off each substrate, then we would have an answer as to what really produces the "most potent" mushrooms...(one might also think that cloned mushies off of the exactly same sub should have nearly the same psilocybin % numbers)....

but then we have to think about yield.....IMO most substrates are the same within potency production.....this is where cloning comes in..........we can drastically increase our yield per sq ft or sq inch etc...........which is essentially an increase in potency as we will have more larger/ beefier mushrooms.........

agreed...

[altered_states]

My FOAF's PF Hawaiian spores have been doing great since January, 2000.
They've been fruited on BRF, various grains, straw, horse poo, compost...
The potency thing is BS IMO.
They always work exactly the same... Great

FOAF has no intention to grow a different cubensis strain.
After mastering cubs (and agar) he will move on to cyans because they are more potent.

Peace,
AS

[~Hippie3]

the few scientific tests of potency/active compounds in
psilocybes showed that potency varies considerably
even between specimens grown under controlled uniform conditions.

[Lazlo]

I agree. Truthfully, I don't think good genetics play a major roll in it. Some of the worse (physical) geno-types umong a substrain still produce great trips. Even mushrooms grown in the worst type of enviroments still do the trick. And IMO, clones are no more potent than a multispore fruiting of a strain.

I've got some literature on a test that can be done in the home, but I can't find it. If i'm remembering correctly, the test is done using silica gel on sheet of glass in an aquarium or something. I'm not THAT worried with it really. It is a simple test though. If I can find the papers, maybe we'll give it a go.

[the_chosen_one]

The words "good genetics" are relative. Seeing what Hippie said just before Lazlo has really got me thinking. Maybe it has something to do with a substrain's genetic ability to deal with it's environment. It's ability to process food, water and air into a fruiting body. Good fruiting genetics may not always be good potency genetics. This may explain the potency differences between the the substrains of a controlled grow. Or then maybe substrains have nothing to do with it and it all rests on the individual fruiting body itself. Mutants, pre aborts and small pins make me wonder about this. They always seem stronger to me. But with small pins we can't forget the maturity factor. As the fruiting body reaches maturity and begins to form spores it begins to spend less energy producing compounds and more producing spores. At least that's my theory and I have no way to absolutely prove that. AAArrgghhh! The more factors considered the crazier it gets! But just pointing the finger at the food!?! Apples are good for humans but are hard to eat if ya don't have any teeth . Testing would definitely be cool tho Laz. If you have a way to do it, it'd be interesting to see the results!

[Lazlo]

Arrrg is right. I shouldn't have said what I did. That's misleading. I found the literature I was talking about. It seems simple enough. I would like to see the difference in a clone grown invitro with straw, rice and horse manure. The substrates would have to be identical in weight, water content, exc. Invitro for a simple and somewhat accurate enviroment. Hmmm. I need to practice the technique first after I get the rest of the supplies.

[TVCasualty]

I have seen published results of a study with radio-tagged DMT being fed to cubensis substrate, with a 30% increase in potency attributed directly due to the tagged DMT. So apparently, the more DMT-like substances in the substrate the better the potency. This might have been the source of people's experiments with DMT precursors, like L-trypophan, being added (mostly in the form of quinoa). I'm hunting down the study, might have been from Ott 1996.

Many species of grasses are being found to contain DMT. I'd be curious to know about DMT or precursor content of straw, grain, poo, etc. Someday when I can manage to extract my cranium from my posterior I'd been intending to try a grow supplemented with Phalaris grass. Maybe entirely on Phalaris, or sclerotia on Phalaris seed with Tamps.

[~Hippie3]

got a link to that study ?

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

got a link to that study ?

Still digging, it's probably from Pharmacotheon, by J. Ott

[TVCasualty]

Ok I got the reference, but it is not a link unfortunately.

Directly quoted from Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World:

"Gartz (1989) found that raising tryptamine concentrations of cow dung and rice media by 25 millimolars directly affected the potency of Psilocybe cubensis mycelia, specifically in psilocin content: from .09% to 3.3% of dried mass (psilocybin content was actually depressed, but not nearly on the same order of magnitude)." (Stamets 1996, pg. 36)

The paper originally cited by Stamets was:
Gartz, J 1989. Biotransformation of Tryptamine in Fruiting Mycelia of Psilocybe cubensis. Planta Medica 55: 249-250.

Some other noteworthy quotes in the same section of Stamets' book regarding potency:

"...Gartz (1989) also made the interesting observation in the culturing of P. azurescens and P. cubensis mycelium that the raising of malt sugars to more than 10% resulted in the complete suppression of psilocybin production. These two observations, one with tryptamines and the other with (carbon rich) sugars, underscore that the nutritional content of the substrate significantly affects potency." (pg. 36) [emphasis added]

"Adding to the difficulty of ascertaining precise dosages is research by Beug and Bigwood (1982a), which found a fourfold difference in the psilocybin content from mushrooms grown on rye grain, and nearly a tenfold difference in specimens collected in the wild." (pg. 36)

Page 36 of that book was very informative.

I am also digging up the reference to a plant hormone, a type of brassinolide, that speeds mycelial growth by 3 times, which I'm sure was in Pharmacotheon by Jonathan Ott but it was a footnote so it's harder to track down, plus this thread is about potency, not growth accelerants so when I find it I'll start a thread. I'm seeking a non-wholesale source for it right now, then I'll try it and post any results...

[Ralphster]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

ok, got myself in an argument with some newbie-know-it-alls
[and a few old-school-know-it-alls, too]
over the issue
of substrate's relation to the product's potency-
to whit
the claim was made that
brf yields weak shrooms
and that horse poo were the most potent.
they say
more nutes = more potency
and claim that hpoo has more of the right nutes
in the right form
than any other substrate.
now
i say horseshit.
not the substrate,
their opinions.

but what say ye ?
cast yer vote above plz.

I'm gonna tell ya what I have seen through years of tests...cultivation..different substrates...cow..horse..etc.

This is how it goes: and it is as simple as this...

Even with the same strain...flushes will differ in potency.
There is NOT a way to make shrooms more potent.
If mushrooms grow....you will never know their potency.

It's a gamble...any strain...sometimes GREAT...sometimes, not so good.
Sometimes, with the same tray..the 2nd and 4th flushes might be fantastic...but the others not so good.

I tryed them all....cow..horse..Llama...deer...brf...you name it.
It doesn't matter.
I'm speaking of cubensis here.

All strains are good...all substrates are good...
If you get your mushrooms to pin and grow...thats what you want.
You will never know about potency..."till ya try them...
Thats a fact.

I just thought I would share what I know...from Many years of doing this.

Ralphster44

[~Hippie3]

also see http://forums.mycotopia.net/showthread.php?t=772

I did not vote. It's all a bit to vague to me. I have never been able to discern between brf, poo, or straw with indoor cultivated mushrooms. When I use to hunt for them the ones that grew in the communal feeding areas that contained both poop and straw seemed to be consistently stronger than the ones that I found in cow patties, but outdoors there are many more variables.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I think it's important to remember the food our fungi friends are designed to consume. The fungi's job is to take dead and decaying matter in virtually any form and speed the breakdown process by consuming and digesting. The fungi is designed to work on/with virtually any source of "food." Fungi is the last step before microbes in life repaying it's loan to the carbon bank. The cubensis fungi is, literally, designed to eat shit. Turning a miniscule amount of that shit into magic is really only a very small part of what the fungi does.

The cubensis has not been adapted by millions of years of evolution to work with an ideal food source like ground up, sterilized, perfectly hydrated BRF cakes. The fungi only takes in so much nutrient to convert to magic, regardless of how much nutrient is present. The cellular processes can only convert so many raw materials, no matter how many are pesent.

More/better nutrients simply don't make for super potent fruit. Straw shrooms and BRF shrooms are about the same size and potency when substrate volumes are comparable. BRF is much, much more nutritious than straw. If the "substrate is king" arguement was valid, BRF shrooms would be far more potent than straw shrooms. FAR more potent. And they should be far larger, as well. BRF is orders of magnitude more nutritious than straw. BRF is nutritious enough for us to live on. But fungus doesn't work like that.

If substrate was so critical to potency, moving a field cubie from the "mediocre" conditions of nature to an "ideal" prepared substrate should make a marked difference in effects. That simply isn't the case. Carefully prepared substrates and terrariums make for more prolific fruiting than field conditions can achieve. Substrates and terrariums don't make for markedly more potent mushrooms than fields.

Nature has designed the cubensis mushroom to turn shit into magic via an amazingly precise and intricate chemical process involving molecular manipulations that we have to nearly stand on our heads to reproduce. The effort we would have to expend to go from a handful of raw elements to psilocybin boggles the mind. Even Shulgin works from precursors. We can't significantly enhance the long, multi stepped process of producing psilocybin by simply providing more/better food at the get-go.

Only so much food can go into the little psilocybin making machines and they are designed to work with very little food. If you want more psilly, you don't need more/better food. You need nore of those little psilocybin making machines. You need more mushrooms or wood lovers. Quality of substrate isn't nearly as important as quantity of substrate in the quest for more. Perfect cakes will never yield as much psilocybin as perfect cakes spawned to 5 times their volume of straw. Even if there is a %10 potency loss fruiting from straw (and I don't believe there is), you would get at least a %200-%300 increase in yield.

If you want more psilocybin, grow more mushrooms (or grow wood lovers). But if more is your primary concern, cheaper isn't far behind. Blowing a ton of money on specialized substrates and additives to feed something that is perfectly happy with BRF and straw seems a little goofy if more/cheaper are amongst your driving concerns.

A much better substrate means lots more fruit, not lots more potent fruit, IMHO.

In the end, cubensis mushroom tissue has the capacity to transform only a very small and specific amount of the nutrients it absorbs iinto magic. More nutrients do not mean more physical capacity to produce magic. You can grow more mushrooms or larger mushrooms by tweaking substrates, not more potent mushrooms.

Significantly more magic is only achieved by a genetic tendency to more magic production sites. Wood lovers are not more potent because they grow on more nutritious food. Wood lovers are more potent because their
cellular structures produce more psilocybin per square inch than the structures in cubensis.

From species to species and strain to strain, I think that genetics have drastically more affect on potency than substrate. I think environment is more relevant than substrate as well.

I think that the "best" bulk substrate is the one you can acquire cheaply and prepare easily in your specific living environment. For Freakachino, the "best" might be made from a pile of horse poo mellowing slowly in the garage and pasteurized straw. For my FOAF, the "best" might be mail ordered coconut coir and worm castings. I don't think there is an independently "best" substrate when talking about something that will grow and produce on such a wide variety of food sources.

[the_chosen_one]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

The cellular processes can only convert so many raw materials, no matter how many are pesent.
More/better nutrients simply don't make for super potent fruit.

Thanks BB!!! There's the words I can't seem to find!

Yes, Buckaroo, well said.

[I_am_me]

I think of potency like this.

Humans are the same species but just like mushrooms there are several substrains out there. Some people have a high red blood cell count, some have low. Some people have high cholesteral and some people have low. We all contain all these chemicals in our bodys and usually at relatively similar levels but those levels fluctuate from person to person. I think its the same as far as chemicals in all natural things go. Some mimosa root bark will contain more dmt than some bark from a different tree but they're the same exact plants grown right beside each other. Its like with herb....you can look at a plant and say well, its probably 8 to 15% thc but unless you're growing from a cloned and tested source you'll never know until you finish the grow.

[tripinstein]

I use a mix of horse poo and BRF in my substrate and seem to get a much healthier response than I do straight poo or straight BRF. The most potent I've grown come from this mix (BHT clone been working with for a while with all kinds of substrates). I think the poo makes for better potency since it is more of a natural habitat substrate.

[~Hippie3]

bucky is pretty dead-on, imho.
think of a mushroom as a psilocin/psilocybin-production engine,
like a car engine, in a way.
it can only burn so much fuel at once,
pouring extra fuel down the carb
does not help.
now perhaps if there was a substrate that increased
metabolic rate...

[BuckarooBanzai]

Sorry I ranted and got so verbose, by the way. I was trying to say the same thing over and over in different ways so it would click with everybody. This is what happens when you do a PWI (post while intoxicated).

Another interesting possibility is the whole tryptamine seeding concept. Unfortunately, the current experimental publishings out there aren't very promising.

We need somebody in Amsterdam with a lot of free time and unlimited access to chromatography equipment. I'll work the knobs if somebody will sponsor my plane fare and living expenses...

[Lazlo]

Chromotography tests can be expensive. I've got a test in mind that can be done somewhat inexpensive yet, would be tedious to be accurate. I'm working on it. But don't expect anything in the next few days. It's going to take me several weeks.