|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Mad Season
hookers and blackjack



Registered: 09/16/12
Posts: 12,666
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: Supalemonhaze]
#23462316 - 07/21/16 10:38 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
yes another LC agar debate!
So wait spore print > LC will surely fail but spore print > water syringe > LC is always going to be successful? What? Since when did adding another vector make it more successful?
|
Supalemonhaze
Spore syringe hater.



Registered: 10/02/15
Posts: 6,725
Loc: 12" down Europe's butthole
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: Mad Season]
#23462323 - 07/21/16 10:42 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It makes sense when you completely disregard logic though.
|
blackout


Registered: 07/16/00
Posts: 5,266
Last seen: 2 months, 25 days
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: tump]
#23462681 - 07/21/16 01:27 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spacechildo said: spore syringe to LC isnt better than spore print to LC, same dirty spores.
You are presuming they are the same there. I made the opposite presumption for commercial products, I always guessed that commercial spore sellers would be more careful with what spores they use in their syringes.
I think PF used to not sell prints but only syringes, and very light ones. It was later said he used agar in the syringes to keep them in suspension. I always had great success with his syringes and those from another long term seller. I have grown shrooms invitro and taken syringes from spores dropped inside the glass, without ever opening the jars. I suspected PF & others might use techniques like that.
Quote:
Mad Season said:So wait spore print > LC will surely fail but spore print > water syringe > LC is always going to be successful? What? Since when did adding another vector make it more successful?
There are 2 or 3 guys I know who want to start growing. My money would be on them having better success with LCs starting with a commercial syringe than a commercial print bought from the seller I recommend.
Quote:
tump said: Even the guy that ran Hawkeyes or mushroom that spores form syrices to lc are fine on lc.
The comments were in this thread https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23347117
Edited by blackout (07/21/16 01:45 PM)
|
spacechildo
proletarians rise up


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 19,243
Loc: Babylon
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: blackout]
#23462708 - 07/21/16 01:48 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blackout said:
Quote:
spacechildo said: spore syringe to LC isnt better than spore print to LC, same dirty spores.
You are presuming they are the same there. The made the opposite presumption for commercial products, I always guessed that commercial spore sellers would be more careful with what spores they use in their syringes.
but whats the difference between the spores in a syringe from a commercial spore seller and the spores he sells as prints?
I know plenty of people here who gets approached by vendors asking to buy spores from them. and its not all TCs and old hands, just people who show pics of great healthy tubs.
So I still dont see how taking spores from the print putting it into syringes makes it a better alternative for spores to LC. there may very well be a point in tumps post I missed, I think I'm a guy with a pretty good imagination but it was still hard to decypher his post.
|
blackout


Registered: 07/16/00
Posts: 5,266
Last seen: 2 months, 25 days
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: spacechildo]
#23462753 - 07/21/16 02:11 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spacechildo said: but whats the difference between the spores in a syringe from a commercial spore seller and the spores he sells as prints?
I have no idea, most are very secretive about how they produce them. Some might well use the exact same ones, some might use ones grown in a cleaner manner. As I said I have grown invitro, the spores fall on the glass, they are a mess and do not resemble a spore print. The method SW use for PE spores was disclosed and they cleaned up the spores using a centrifuge, this was more separating from veil material but still there could be lots of unknown methods being used.
If I was making commercial syringes I would at least take spores only from the centre of prints which are presumed to be cleaner. I think I heard of people letting spores drop and discarding the early falling ones, e.g. you could take a print and midway through it dropping you move it onto a fresh bit of foil or jar which could result in a very light extra print which could not be sold commercially. I think the idea is that contams may have attached to the gills while growing and the early dropping spores would have a higher amount of these contams.
Quote:
spacechildo said: I know plenty of people here who gets approached by vendors asking to buy spores from them.
I have heard this before, of course there are shitty vendors, no doubt about that, perhaps the rise in these chancers has lead to an increase in failed LCs. Do you know if any of the 12+ year vendors have done this? 2 of them in particular.
|
spacechildo
proletarians rise up


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 19,243
Loc: Babylon
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: blackout]
#23462785 - 07/21/16 02:29 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
of the two big guys I know for sure 1 of them and I'm 99% sure it's both, how they get their spores from prints to syringes IDK but why would they buy such amounts of prints but only do syringes from spores gotten from 100% verified in vitro grows?
When someone says dont put the LC on agar it sketches me out, not because I think the grow will fail but because I know how much shit you can get away with and how fuckin awesome things can be when you do things "by the book"
|
blackout


Registered: 07/16/00
Posts: 5,266
Last seen: 2 months, 25 days
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: spacechildo]
#23463140 - 07/21/16 04:24 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spacechildo said: of the two big guys I know for sure 1 of them and I'm 99% sure it's both,
I always figured they would have strict control over them and not want to risk their good name. Maybe some types like PE would be more controlled than others, they would not want to risk the wrong ones going out, its common to see people growing supposed PE they got in trades. Though I did read of someone recently claiming to be getting cubes labelled as pans from one of the 2 I am talking about.
Quote:
spacechildo said:how they get their spores from prints to syringes IDK but why would they buy such amounts of prints but only do syringes from spores gotten from 100% verified in vitro grows?
They can get a lot of syringes from one print. If I had 20 customers potentially bad mouthing my business I would take more care selecting that 1 print to make those 20 syringes. Syringes are more attractive to beginners, who will try the likes of direct LC rather than agar, I would factor this in if I was a seller. Many who buy a print and make their own syringes work on agar and if they fail they may presume they were at fault, rather than it being an unusually dirty print.
I said "There are 2 or 3 guys I know who want to start growing. My money would be on them having better success with LCs starting with a commercial syringe than a commercial print bought from the seller I recommend."
If trying to get spores into a LC with no syringe I would be telling them to do it in an SAB and I think these guys I am thinking of would be more risky doing this. Some posters dismiss people saying "your SAB skills are obviously shit, get better at it" but I would accept its likely people will be bad, and so gamble that way if I had to bet. If using syringes I would tell them to use SHIPs and have no filter on the LC jar. Some say SHIPs are bad and can drive contams in from the outer side. I cover the jars with foil or plastic bags and would take it off immediately before putting in the flamed needle.
Syringes may have additives we do not know about, like anti bacterial products. I also expect these guys I know would stick plenty of spores in off a print "to be sure" even if I told them not to, again people might say "well they are idiots" but I think it is typical and so again would gamble that way. They could be dumping in 100 times the spores they would if putting in a few drops of a syringe, and therefore more risk of contams too, even if they do only put a tiny amount of spores in its likely to be a lot more than from a syringe.
|
spacechildo
proletarians rise up


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 19,243
Loc: Babylon
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: blackout]
#23463185 - 07/21/16 04:34 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
well, I'm misanthropic enough to think if any of those added antibacterial stuff to their syringes we wouldn't hear the end of it. "New and improved #1 syringes on the internet" etc etc.
|
blackout


Registered: 07/16/00
Posts: 5,266
Last seen: 2 months, 25 days
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: spacechildo]
#23463256 - 07/21/16 05:02 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Here is the guy who claimed to know what PF did. This is where I must have heard of antibacterials. They may keep it secret both to stop rivals selling it, and to not scare off people who would prefer they did not use substances like that.
Quote:
ranonar said: Perhaps this now is the good thread to reveal some extra bits of info...
Something about me: Ranonar = Yachaj Paye (I posted under that name a decade ago). I have maintained Billy's archive during the nineties, and still do that.
Funny things I remember of Billy. He not only was a cultivation and musical genius - able to make complicaded things very simple - but also quite stubborn. Not the easiest teacher to have at all. And he was not that good in spelling words. Psylocybe fanaticus of course should have been Psilocybe but once the company name existed he hold on to it. So Psylocybe it is. And in his manual he wrote about inoculation. Not inoculation as it should be. But this misspelling went lagerly unnoticed. Tons of psilophiles now write inoculation. Just do a web search on the word - it is a clear sign of the influence of Billy!!
One unpublished 'secret' of his sporesyringe formula. People always were puzzled why his syringes always appeared so evenly mixed with spores. The spores never stuck to the syringe barrell! It was a hallmark of his syringes only. Nobody was able to replicate it. And here at shroomery and there at mycotopia there have been several attempts to figure it out. Clever folks indeed figured out that something was added to the water. But what was it? People experimented with detergent to make the water thinner. Others used micro sound waves to separate the clumps of spores into individual spores. Some even added sex lube to the water (really!). Man, you made Billy rolling over the floor about that!!!
OK. Now is the time to reveal the secret. First some explanation. The water should not be thinner but thicker (so that spores will not move to the syringe barrell wall). And the spore clumps should not be totally broken up into individual spores (technically the clumps should never be smaller than two spores, but in practice a dozen or so is fine). Also, whatever is added to the water should not lead to pre-germination of the spores. And that is difficult since (almost) whatever does not kill the spores will be eaten by them and used for germination. Of course, whatever is added to the water should not be toxic to the spores either.
The solution to all these requirements was AGAR. Just plain agar agar. In a concentration of one gram per liter of water. ISn't it weird that no copycat vendor thought about that?
Recipe: You make bottles of 1 g/l agarwater, and in those you inject concentrated sporewater. The spores in the concentrated sporewater (in 30ml bottles) may be broken up (if they all stick together) by freezing/thawing the small bottles. One full petri dish of spores in 1 small bottle is enough for 5 liters of sporewater this way. 500 syringes.
It is bizarre that no one so far thought of a simple pure agarwater solution. But that is what is was!!! No sex lube definately!
Another 'secret': how to clean the spores from bacteria. That was done with tetracycline - if needed. One petri dish of Spores was scraped in 30ml bottles containing 1 g/liter of tetracyclin and kept for 4 days at roomtemperature. This killed the bacteria, then the spore concentrate was injected into 500ml agarwater bottles.
But this is all a good story for history. The spore syringe is dead anyway. Yeah that is right. Among the final and yet unpublished parts of the PF TEK was the removal of the spore syringe of the technique. After the pressure canner and the petri dish the syringe was the last annoying cumbersome utensil to go.
A year ago Billy and I communicated about re-ignition fanaticus. Billy wanted that because he knew he did not have much time on this planet anyway and he figured that it would then be better to take the risk of being caught and receive an effective 'life sentence' of less than a year, i.e. make the government pay for his remaining ospital bills, since they took his bank accounts earlier. Billy though that to be a good statement. But his wife -in 2003 another member of the 'fanaticus gang'- didn't see it that way.
The removal of the syringe would have been the main improvement of the new PF TEK. The old spore syringe would become obsolete. But the disagreement about the re-ignation of fanaticus.com prevented that. But now Billy is not here anymore there is no reason to keep it from happening.
More about this new technique will be published soon at the old fanaticus.com - I do not know how soon it actually will be because a couple of his old friends of the music scene (Billy was a hell of a sax/guitar/keyboard musician!!!) will use the site for a Billy memorial, so I gave them the password and will see what they make of it. But later on, just watch it, the spore syringe is about to retire and a replacement will be published at fanaticus.com
Here is Workman talking about PE, and how the technique could be used on "regular cube" caps that have already dropped prints.
Quote:
Workman said: It isn't really a secret but the basic method is to take very mature caps that are visibly producing spores. Even these rarely drop decent prints but the spores are there. These are gently dried, which tends to cause even more spores to mature before the cap completely dries out. The caps are then crushed, rehydrated in sterile water with a wetting agent and then centrifuged. Spores are very dense compared to the mushroom tissue, bacteria and other impurities, so they separate nicely into a pellet at the bottom of the vial. Remove the top layer and repeat with a few more washings and centrifuging and you have nearly pure spores when you are done. This is dried and used as needed.
It is somewhat complicated and not practical for the home experimenter but it does scale up well for the production of commercial quantities of PE spores. This method can also be used with regular cubensis caps after normal printing. There are a surprisingly large amount of spores clinging to gills. Swabbing is easier and works just as well for archiving spore samples.
Quote:
Workman said: Its an adaptation of an existing method. I forget where I first read about it but I want to say Mycelium Running by Stamets. I'd have to confirm that. The method is self cleaning since the contaminates are lighter than the spores and deposit on the top of the pellet.
Quote:
Workman said: I left out a step. You should coarsely filter the mushroom material before centrifuging. Its probably obvious that you don't need large chunks in the centrifuge.
|
spacechildo
proletarians rise up


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 19,243
Loc: Babylon
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
Re: Cyber LC Tek possible with smaller jar? [Re: blackout]
#23463285 - 07/21/16 05:14 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
yeah I heard about agar and PE syringes but it still doesnt sit quite right with me. If they wanted to be known for their 100% clean guaranteed quality why even sell prints from randoms instead of just syringes "100% clean guarantee"?
|
|