Aging

[Smoker]

As an additional thought - anaerobic fermentation of sugars will release CO₂. Stoichiometric, this will lead to a volume increase. So, pipe tobacco tins would quickly lose their vaccuum. Therefore, I even doubt that much sugar fermentation is going on in tinned pipe tobacco either.

I read an interesting article here.

"There are two types of fermentation that can change a blend- aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic fermentation occurs in the American-style tins and in bulk blends put up in mason jars as these containers still have a fair amount of air in them. After the microbes use up the oxygen in the container, anaerobic fermentation will occur. Anaerobic fermentation is what will happen in the European-type vacuum sealed tins, and in mason jars where a vacuum pump is used to evacuate air, or by using heat to draw a hard seal. What’s the difference between the two? The processes would be too involved to address here, but the result will be quite different. A note- Latakia blends tend to be affected less by vacuum sealed tins."

I have a few of those 'American style' tins - i.e. G L Pease tobaccos. The tins are around 10 years old and they have swollen quite a bit in size. In fact, I wonder if they will eventually explode (good luck smokeyjoe01 lol). This is another annoyance of GLP. He is dedicated to aging tobaccos, and claims to have designed his blends specifically for this purpose. However, his blends are quite dry, and are not vacuum sealed. In my experience (opinion of course, not evidence based) vacuum sealed tins, and tins with more moisture, tend to show the greatest improvement in the long term. Anyway, I digress....the point was, there is an increase in volume with those tins that are not vacuum sealed, so this suggests some evidence for the release of CO_2.

.....I think it is mostly a matter of definition and gradation, but sugar fermentation will most certainly not play a role in cigar’s aging. Even during the fermentation process of tobacco in the piles, among others the main purpose of this process is the breakdown of certain proteins and quite importanty – nicotine.

I agree that the term 'fermentation' is somewhat open to interpretation.

I think that nobody can really claim to be a real expert on these matters. There is a lack of strong scientific research on the subject of tobacco aging, and even when reading articles on aging, from professional sources, the specific processes of aging are never really scientifically explained. In the pipe tobacco world, all sources tend to state 'the fermentation of the sugars in the blend' in one way or another. I will concede that perhaps their interpretation of the word 'fermentation' is somewhat broad, or even inaccurate. But the empirical evidence suggests that tobaccos, or tobacco blends containing the most sugars, will also show the most significant and/or desirable change in the long run. This was the crux of my original post....we agree that cigar tobaccos contain less sugar than pipe blends and, in my mind, must therefore not be as well-suited to aging as pipe tobacco is. But this supposes that the change of a tobacco, over time, is based on fermentation, or at least 'changes to' the sugars found in the tobacco. You are suggesting that sugars have nothing to do with aging, and that the changes over time are based on the breakdown of proteins. We need some hard evidence to find out which of these is correct!

[SipIt]

Cuba has, indeed, changed quite a bit in its practices and procedures, as well as the introduction of new tobacco strains on a regular basis. In the 90s almost all boxes of fresh cigars went through at least one sick period. During the early 2000s it wasn't as consistent, but we'd encounter it fairly regularly, if not often. Over the past 10 years the phenomenon has become less and less common. The fact that so many folks are smoking tons of '14 & '15 stock is an indication of this. I'm neither a chemist nor a cigar expert, but I've noticed a direct correlation between the less Ligero in cigars nowadays and the absence of a sick period...more cigars that smoke great young. I'd guess that evolving drying and curing processes has also contributed, but which, to what degree ?...not a clue

Any one else have thoughts on this? I think it's a pretty interesting topic. Why do cigars seemingly not go thru (or at least for not as long) a sick period like they used to? Is it because of less ligero, or a change in the process?

[Orion21]

Any one else have thoughts on this? I think it's a pretty interesting topic. Why do cigars seemingly not go thru (or at least for not as long) a sick period like they used to? Is it because of less ligero, or a change in the process?

The tobacco being used to create the cigars has been aged longer. It used to be that Cuba would use leaf fermented for 12 months in regular production cigars, but for the last few years I have read Cuba stockpiled huge amounts of tobacco from great harvests. I remember Rob commenting at one point he saw a stack of tobacco with a 2004 date on the canvas. So in short, Cuba using more aged leaf has bypassed this sick period old school guys were used to because Cuba was using much younger leaf. The ligero component of this is many cigars aren't as "in your face" as some past releases.

[Orion21]

Nobody ferments tobacco for 12 months. You're probably thinking about curing which is a dry process in bales or bundles. I think you're on the right trail though, and we are getting tobacco that has been allowed to age before rolling. They may even be sitting in wheels for a longer period after rolling, allowing for off-gassing that used to happen in the box ? It's probably a combination of all this as well as new strains of tobacco. Regardless, I wholeheartedly approve. My aged stock continues to age while I very much enjoy current production. I regularly sample the older stuff though...would hate to go right by that sweet spot

Very true, I meant curing, not fermenting. Thanks for the correction. I have been buying Cuban cigars since early 2010 and I have never had a box smell of ammonia. I have had cigars that needed some rest to open up, but they have never been "under" cured requiring significant box aging to be smokeable. The only box that even comes to mind that I had to lay down for more than 6 months were my RACF, but that's only because the blend was an arse kicker!

[Fugu]

Very true, I meant curing, not fermenting. Thanks for the correction. I have been buying Cuban cigars since early 2010 and I have never had a box smell of ammonia. I have had cigars that needed some rest to open up, but they have never been "under" cured requiring significant box aging to be smokeable. The only box that even comes to mind that I had to lay down for more than 6 months were my RACF, but that's only because the blend was an arse kicker!

You actually meant aging (as stated in your original post). Curing is the initial process taking place following harvest in the tobacco barns.

But, yes, the aging process of the tobacco (before rolling) is said having been extended some ten years ago. That will certainly have aided in cigars developing less ammonia in the box (while - you can still have that...).

Maybe we'll see a stepping back from that practice again, with the recent poorer harvests? Let's hope they'll go for restricting production and not compromising quality.

[stigmata]

If they're nice, smoke them.

I'll age them a couple of years.. If I'm keeping them longer is not so much for the sake of aging but storing them

I do like some age on them but it's s giggle when people say store these for eight years and they will go from the current 91 to a solid 94.

Truth is no two cigars are exactly the same and they can go the other way.

Plus you might not even be alive for eight years

Enjoy!

One of the things that high Australian tobacco tax and low Aussie dollar coupled with less smoking time has taught me, is that..

Enjoy today's cigar whenever that is and don't worry about tomorrow

[PapaDisco]

Screw all of this!!!

I am packing all my aging boxes in a sealed airtight stainless steel drum and burying it in the back yard. No light, no oxygen, no heat - just mother nature preserving them for as long as I'd like

Umm . . . where is your house . . . and when are you next on vacation??

[mcease022]

Maybe we'll see a stepping back from that practice again, with the recent poorer harvests? Let's hope they'll go for restricting production and not compromising quality.

If the embargo does end and demand goes up I think we might see a stepping back from that practice. With the increase in demand and the potential increase of profits I highly doubt that they will restrict production IMO.

[danny]

If I had a cigar time machine and I sent some to the future, would they age during the trip?

Haha. Would you age?

[ChefBoyRG54]

Haha. Would you age?

Ha! I'd accept that

[reffy]

But let’s first go back and define the term “fermentation” - this may consist of microbiotic as well as enzymatic transformations of substrates. While I’d expect that fermentation by microorganismic action (bacteria, yeasts, other fungi) will not play a major role in the finished product, some enzymatic activity might still be retained. This might find better working conditions in pipe tobacco, mainly due to its higher moisture content. But at low storage temps, far from the activity optimum, this will likely be running at very, very slow rates.

Mate I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of what you're saying. Fermentation is defined as sugar being transformed into, well other. Other can be a gas, liquid, solid, etc. The basic idea is that sugars are being converted from it's original saccharide form into energy + byproducts. The most recognizable case of anaerobic fermentation by yeast in order to make alcohol, yeast is deriving energy from the sugars in order to survive. The byproducts being alcohol and CO₂.

As for enzymatic activity most enzymes (I'd even hazard to say all) only work to lower the activation energy of a reaction. They don't spontaneously rearrange or combine different chemicals together without the input of energy, they only lower the energy required for a reaction to run.

Like you said, enzymes are pretty fickle. They break down, they denature, they're pretty terrible at surviving overall. However, most chemical processes in the body require them to run, they help break down chemical bonds. Therefore I hypothesize that enzymes are required for any sort of chemical change to take place within a cigar, because of the large molecules we are dealing with.

In a finished cigar, however, with its around 12% substrate moisture, there won’t be happening much anymore. But, what some of us may observe (Davidoff has been describing that as well), when they store their cigars without temp control, is a certain “fermentation” smell that develops when temps go up during the warmer season, in particular in younger boxes. This may derive from purely chemical as well as perhaps also some retained enzymatic activity. Though most enzymes that have been set free from the cell are not very stable in the long term and will be broken down over time. So, the final product is rather stable with regard to “fermentation”…while - very strictly spoken - some processes that may qualify under the technical term “fermentation” might still be going on, at least for some time, and at very low turnover rates.

So, I think it is mostly a matter of definition and gradation, but sugar fermentation will most certainly not play a role in cigar’s aging. Even during the fermentation process of tobacco in the piles, among others the main purpose of this process is the breakdown of certain proteins and quite importanty – nicotine.

I think you underestimate the ability of microbes to survive in different environments. Take Bacillus anthracis, or anthrax. It's dormant spores can survive for decades to infect hosts later on in life. Imagine you're cleaning out an old attic, you kick up some dust, you breathe it in...

BAM

You have anthrax (well it's not that simple, but you get the idea). There are microbes that are called thermophiles, these badasses can survive up to 122^oC (251^oF). Other microbes, lithoautotrophs, survive purely on minerals. Microbes, specifically bacteria, are very capable at surviving in very hostile conditions.

While the conditions on a cigar may not be optimal for bacterial proliferation, cells can still grow and convert the different molecules into the byproducts we enjoy in a cigar. The slower processing of products is more likely due to the low reproduction rates of cells, not from spontaneous chemical conversion.

This post is just to show a different scientific view on the aging process of a cigar, I am in no means attacking you. I wanted to put forth information I've learned throughout my education that, I think, is pertinent to the conversation.

[stigmata]

Smoke those suckers

[Fugu]

Mate I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of what you're saying.[....]

Thanks for the "lesson". Your scientific education is appreciated by someone who is totally unillumined in the field. But what is it you are actually trying to tell us, Reffy? There is not a single sentence that would rebut any of my statements, in particular none of your rather lame comparisons and the wiki-smattering. Yet your very first sentence about the definition of fermentation is wrong already (sorry for being that clear about it - youre alluding to the historically narrower-sense definition).

So, could you please focus or state more precisely in which points you think I am wrong, I just don't get it, on repeated reading.

However, I won't go and dispute (so much more to say). I've learned people here on the forum are quickly getting bored by that.

Believe what you think is true, fine with me. But let me simply sum up my view on this again:

Aging of the finished cigar has nothing to do with fermentation.

Paul

Perhaps still some aspects for you to consider:

- If fermentation as you say were exclusively sugar-based (sticking to that older/narrower definition), where does the (important) release of ammonia during fermenting in the burros derive from? Why and how is nicotine being broken down in this process? Why are tannins being affected? And by "whom" are plant resins are "eaten up"?

- As you state quite correctly, microbial (bacterial, fungal) spores are inactive - so how much substrate turnover would we expect from them?

- Microbial (i.e. intact cells) fermentation ceases at substrate moisture levels of below 25%-28% w/w water content. Then, how much microbial fermentation would we expect in the finished cigar?

- Enzymatic (i.e. extracellular) fermentation needs substrate moisture levels of >10-12 % to work. So we are at the very edge for enzyme action in the finished cigar. Most free enzymes of mesophiles - we are not talking hydrothermal vent communities here....- are not very stable in the long term (in actual fact, there are some extremely stable enzymes existent even in mesophiles). While I was not dismissing a certain degree of enzymatic activity still going on in the box after packaging, that won't hold on for very long.

[mgravito]

So, could you please focus or state more precisely in which points you think I am wrong, I just don't get it, on repeated reading.

However, I won't go and dispute (so much more to say). I've learned people here on the forum are quickly getting bored by that.

I'm enjoying the heck out of this. Two people arguing with far more knowledge of this subject. This is great.

[Smallclub]

Fermentation is defined as sugar being transformed into, well other. Other can be a gas, liquid, solid, etc. The basic idea is that sugars are being converted from it's original saccharide form into energy + byproducts. The most recognizable case of anaerobic fermentation by yeast in order to make alcohol, yeast is deriving energy from the sugars in order to survive. The byproducts being alcohol and CO₂.

This is alcoholic fermentation, it's very specific, there are several other types of fermentation.

[reffy]

This is alcoholic fermentation, it's very specific, there are several other types of fermentation.

Indeed there is, I was only mentioning a generalized example to get my point across to who haven't learned anything about it.

Thanks for the "lesson". Your scientific education is appreciated by someone who is totally unillumined in the field. But what is it you are actually trying to tell us, Reffy? There is not a single sentence that would rebut any of my statements, in particular none of your rather lame comparisons and the wiki-smattering. Yet your very first sentence about the definition of fermentation is wrong already (sorry for being that clear about it - youre alluding to the historically narrower-sense definition).

My comparisons may be lame but I feel that it got a large point across, one that you've missed. I wasn't trying to directly refute your postulations, but merely trying to expand the realm of possibility for you and maybe even encourage more research into your hypothesis.

You hypothesize that aging (I'll stick with your term here) is a purely chemical reaction. However with the possibility that enzymes may exist within the system. That is not the case, pure chemical reactions would not take place within a cigar. Why?

1) An activation energy is required for a non-spontaneous chemical reaction to occur. Think of it like a toll booth for a bridge. The side you are coming from is where the substrate is, the other side products. If you go across the bridge, but you don't have the correct amount of money for the toll you stay on the substrate side. If you do have the money then you proceed to the products side.

In aging cigars we avoid many different types of inputs into the system (heat, light) that would normally be needed for a pure chemical reaction to occur. I would posit that energy input into the system is at a minimum.

2) Furthermore, if the reaction is both purely chemical and spontaneous (having the necessary amount of energy to cross the energy-toll bridge) then we would expect aging to happen very rapidly, not over months (years, decades, etc.). That's because all the necessary components are already there for the product to be made.

We expect spontaneous reactions to proceed if the necessary reagents are present because substances want to exist in the lowest possible energy state. By proceeding with a reaction it will lower its total energy. Therefore we would see a very small amount of time required to age a cigar, which goes against our evidence to the contrary (albeit anecdotal).

As for your questions:

1) You confusing two different processes. The first: glycolysis (and tricarboxilic acid cycle) and the nitrogen cycle.

The former is more in respect to humans (microbial ecology was not something I focused on), but still relevant. It is the conversion of an extracellular sugar into a usable product. In the case of a human glycolysis breaks down glucose into pyruvate (an intermediate product for many different processes) which proceeds into human mitochondria as Acetyl-CoA to be used as a source of carbon and energy for cell survival and proliferation. This is why sugars are required for "fermentation". It is necessary for heterotrophic cell survival (we are assuming hetertrophs because I doubt the persistence of autotrophs in a system which avoids sunlight).

The latter, the nitrogen cycle, is not too complex. It is essentially nitrogen flowing throughout a system and being recycled by many different microbial units (Look up the nitrogen cycle on google for a pretty picture). Nitrogen is required by many cells in order to produce amino acids which are required for proteins, DNA, etc..

To answer your question directly, ammonia is released by denitrifying bacteria that has latched onto the leaves of the cigar during the harvesting process.

The sugars mentioned before are required to keep the cell alive, while the nitrogen is required to help the cell proliferate through the production of enzymes, proteins, and new daughter (sister?) cells.

2) Why and how nicotine is being broken down. This would require a longer explanation, one I wish to avoid. I have done research on this (albeit just surfing scientific journals) and the short answer is that there is a bacterium which has evolved to specialize it's survival around the tobacco plant. I forget the name of it but it is much like the processes shown above. The cell uses nicotine as a substrate in order to produce things required for survival, while we reap the benefits from its byproducts. (If you wish I can go back into the papers and find the name of the bacterium I believe is the root cause of this)

3) Tannins? I have no knowledge on tannins so I won't comment on this matter, but I will say it is likely due to the explanation given to why nicotine is broken down.

4) Same answers as before.

5) Substrate turnover. To put it simply I can't comment on this. Any guess I would give would be talking out of my ass. To determine substrate turnover rate we would need $1 million+ of equipment and years of research to find this out. I simply do not have the capital or manpower to do this. (If we are going from determining the bacterium to determining byproduct concentration).

As for spores, I was talking about a very specific case in which bacterium have means to survive well outside their 'expected' survival time. (Endospores are a cool one to look into)

6) Microbial fermentation. Again, I don't know. I have no focus in microbial ecology and simply do not have the knowledge required to hazard a guess. You're asking for very specific details in a field no one is going to research (unless paid for by tobacco companies) and even then they wouldn't be posted in scientific journals because they are 'trade secrets'. I merely posit that there is a possibility that an organism exists that can survive within aging tobacco. If you have an article I could read up on, that would be much appreciated.

7) Enzymatic fermentation. Indeed, I said in my previous post that enzymes suck at surviving. Absolutely terrible in fact. Hence the reason for live cells to proliferate within the system. They're required to produce new enzymes within the cigar.

Again I used an extreme example in order to get an idea across (hence why they're called extremophiles).

Hopefully now the propositions I was hinting at are now fully illuminated. Maybe I was a bit too hasty saying that it is a fermentation process (without further research of course). I was extrapolating from aging practices of many members here (sealed boxes, vacuum seal, Cazadores in foil, etc.) preventing the exchange of oxygen within the system. But ignoring the hasty hypothesis of the scientific definition of fermentation, I would say that aging is a purely microbial process.

I avoided going into much detail because I know the same as you: long-winded educational posts are boring. People don't want to read them, much less read something that requires months to understand, hence the brevity and extreme comparisons.

[jwr0201]

Screw all of this!!!

I am packing all my aging boxes in a sealed airtight stainless steel drum and burying it in the back yard. No light, no oxygen, no heat - just mother nature preserving them for as long as I'd like

Just watch out for the sinkholes! Here in FL, we had a Porsche dealership hit with sinkholes.

[TheMonk]

Gents, you both appear to have a much deeper understanding of the "ageing" process then most folks here, and very long technical posts are definitely not that easy to understand, so I'll just get to what I believe is the main question in most people's minds: in your scientific opinion, would you both agree on there being any long term difference between aging cigars in oxygen deprived containers, vs letting them age normally simply inside their cedar boxes in the humidor?

[Fugu]

Just for the sake of the entertainment of other members, one last "return" from my side:

I know, I won't convince you, Reffy, and I am not even trying to. But honestly, you don't need to give me lessons in enzymology, to be frank and fair - I am versed in it (not tobacco-related, however, quite regrettably).
What you are saying is in part correct and well reproduced, in part terribly wrong. In the essential aspects, you are even contradicting yourself. In fact you provide the very arguments supporting my own statements. I will just briefly concentrate on that, as most of the other stuff is vastly irrelevant to our case:

You say, spontaneous chemical transformations, i.e. the breaking up or formation of covalent bonds, would not occur in tobacco of a finished cigar (by that, you even dismiss the action of oxidative processes). Instead, you postulate enzymes were always needed for all reactions. You moreover say, not only enzymes but even intact cells were necessary for that, i.e. living and by that actively metabolizing bacteria (you will remember - we are talking about the finished cigar, appr. 12% moisture, not the tobacco in piles, fermenting at high moisture and temperatures between ca 100 to 140° F). On a side note - even in the piles a large proportion, roughly half of the fermentation processes is driven by autolysis and enzymes of herbal/tobacco origin and not by microorganismal action (sterilized tobacco matter will start fermenting as well, but on a lower and different level).

As you say correctly, enzymes act as catalyzers in lowering the activation energy, Ea, of a chemical reaction. Right.
Now, you will have heard of Gauss, resp. Boltzmann. Because, what in fact happens, and what you completely ignore in your simplified "model" of the bridge, is the essential fact that all those chemical reactions would of course also be running without the presence of the specific enzyme catalysing that reaction. But it will be running at a much, sometimes even almost infinitesimal slower rate for a given temperature. The 'simple' effect of the enzyme-mediated reaction is it, that for a given temperature, the bell-curve of the distribution of Ea of substrate-enzyme complexes is shifted towards a higher proportion of molecules showing a sufficiently high Ea to make the reaction happen! Thereby resulting in a much higher turnover rate.
To put it with your model, there are just more people having the toll at hand, but without enzyme there are still a lucky few who got the cash to pass.

You say enzymes are always needed for catalyzing the reactions in a cigar, but at the same time you say, purely spontaneous chemical reactions would occur faster. See that contradiction here?

Therefore, quite the reverse:
You are saying: Were it a purely spontaneous chemical reaction it would be happening rather quick and "aging" would be finished within short time.
I say: Due to the much smaller proportion of molecules/bonds with a sufficiently high Ea in the absence of enzymes, the turnover rate will be much lower compared to an enzyme-catalysed reaction. And that is what we actually do observe in the real world.

Were it organismic/enzymatic, then it would be running much faster. And - more importantly - if microbes would be responsible for it and find favourable conditions, as you postulate it with your assumptions, then - what at all would hinder these microbes not to grow and metabolize everything immediately, as long as substrate is still available and end-products are not inhibiting?

Reffy, I guess - from my understanding of you understanding the basic matters - even you will agree with that after a short consideration? Perhaps you simply didn't see the wood for all those trees. But microbial action being responsible for the aging process in the finished cigar is highly "unlikely", to put it respectfully.

Cheers
Paul

[Fugu]

Gents, you both appear to have a much deeper understanding of the "ageing" process then most folks here, and very long technical posts are definitely not that easy to understand, so I'll just get to what I believe is the main question in most people's minds: in your scientific opinion, would you both agree on there being any long term difference between aging cigars in oxygen deprived containers, vs letting them age normally simply inside their cedar boxes in the humidor?

No idea, I don't care about practice. Only discussing this for the joy of the academic exercise....

[Circles]

This is only my second post on the forum so please go easy on me, but this is a topic of interest.

I have to say that (in my view) people make it too complicated. I have been smoking cigars for 25 years and one thing I have learned in that time is this - a cigar fresh from a box can often-times be the best cigar as an aged one or equally average/rubbish.

However, and more importantly, unless you are tasting two identical cigars side-by-side I would bet good money that we are not very good at distinguishing the variations in taste produced due to maturity - if it even occurs in the first place.

Again, in my view, there are so many external and internal variables to change how a cigar smokes that to try and suggest one can discern any changes would be a surprising thing to me. All of these factors will influence the taste/flavour and the perception of those very qualities - humidity, temperature, any foods/drinks consumed, mood, ambiance, activity etc. I just don't feel I could judge the same cigar from the same box years apart and make any genuine comparison. And if I did, it would be more my imagination.

Now all the above applies to me and I'm sure others like you all might be able to tell differences. I just enjoy the cigar, nothing more satisfying than opening the lid on my humidor, smelling a warm and moist cigar smell to give me a huge grin and hours of pleasure. But that's just me. Sorry for a long post.

[reffy]

in your scientific opinion, would you both agree on there being any long term difference between aging cigars in oxygen deprived containers, vs letting them age normally simply inside their cedar boxes in the humidor?

To put it simply: I have no idea.

The subject matter at hand is too complex with many different variables to put forward a straight answer through simple thought. We can't even agree if it's chemical, microbial, or even both. Nor do we know if the end products through either aerobic or anaerobic means. I can positively say I have no idea.

Just for the sake of the entertainment of other members, one last "return" from my side:

Indeed, we are of two very different schools of thought. Without research it'd be nigh impossible to determine if one of us is 'right' or not. However it is a quite fun thought experiment to say the least. As I've stated before, microbial ecology was not my focus in undergraduate, I can only apply what I've learned from the human systems into the ecological system we are talking about here. I am by no means an expert in the subject matter.

I do in fact contradict myself in my writing, it is not exactly the most thought out post. I do concede that fermentation may not be the main process in play here, based on the fact I was extrapolating from anecdotal evidence (big no no), but I'm not exactly trying to write a paper here.

I put simplified models of systems into my post not as an insult to you, but as a helpful reference to the casual observer.

I know that chemical reactions will run without enzymes, that's not the issue I have with the pure chemical reaction side. My issue is: is there enough energy going into the system to fuel the endothermic reactions? Wouldn't we expect the spontaneous reactions to occur before the cigar is even made? The tobacco storing process, as you said, is at a higher temperature (inside the bale), possibly allowing for enough activation energy to be input into the system. My view is that any spontaneous reaction would happen then and there, there is significant moisture to allow for substrate mobility and enough heat being produced in order to meet any Ea requirements that would normally occur at the levels we store our cigars at. If the years in a bale haven't already pushed reactions to it's conclusion, why would we think storing them at a temperature 50 degrees cooler will?

So yes, spontaneous reactions would occur faster, in fact they probably already have before the cigar is even made.

I didn't say that enzymatic action is always needed. I was saying that at room temperature (~70^oF/~27^oC) there is not enough energy input without enzymes for reactions to occur. It's the reason why our bodies can do anything without running at high temperatures, enzymes lower Ea for reactions to occur at lower temperatures.

As for reaction rates of enzyme-mediated reactions: the rate limiting step isn't the enzyme, it's the organism. Indeed, you bring up a very important, but very common issue with microbiology: why don't microorganisms, such as bacteria, run rampant? The answer is simple, they're not growing in optimal conditions. Even in the lab we have issues growing different bacteria in optimal conditions. Those (pretty sweet) time-lapses that you see of bacterium growing rapidly are not the norm. If what you ask were true, why isn't our whole world engulfed in 'bad' bacteria? Why aren't we constantly sick from bacterial infections?

This is why aging takes so long, the enzymes produced by microbes are not being produced at a high rate because the cells aren't proliferating at a high rate. They simply cannot or will not sustain high metabolic activity within a system that is very selective. So yes, in short if this was optimal media, in optimal conditions, with optimal bacteria then we would see high turnover. However, because this is a cigar and not a petri dish in the lab we don't see that.

Given the considerations regarding enzymes that occur naturally from the leaf, I would say that they are not what's at issue here. Especially without knowing the methods the experiment used. As I mentioned before, the issue is not whether or not spontaneous reactions will occur without enzymes, it's spontaneity within the context of the cigar making process.

Paul, from my understanding, you're not envisioning the whole picture. You are too focused on projecting one system of aging (which I assume is from wine), onto another. Tobacco and wine, are two very distinct products each with their own difficulties when it comes to aging. I see your argument working very will for wine, but with a product that has it's own distinct procedures for creation I still can't see your argument working. I cannot see how you can reconcile for spontaneous reactions when there is, by your own admission, a step which would (via enzymatic activity, as well as spontaneous reaction) refute your argument.

[El Presidente]

Mate I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of what you're saying. Fermentation is defined as sugar being transformed into, well other. Other can be a gas, liquid, solid, etc. The basic idea is that sugars are being converted from it's original saccharide form into energy + byproducts. The most recognizable case of anaerobic fermentation by yeast in order to make alcohol, yeast is deriving energy from the sugars in order to survive. The byproducts being alcohol and CO₂.

As for enzymatic activity most enzymes (I'd even hazard to say all) only work to lower the activation energy of a reaction. They don't spontaneously rearrange or combine different chemicals together without the input of energy, they only lower the energy required for a reaction to run.

Like you said, enzymes are pretty fickle. They break down, they denature, they're pretty terrible at surviving overall. However, most chemical processes in the body require them to run, they help break down chemical bonds. Therefore I hypothesize that enzymes are required for any sort of chemical change to take place within a cigar, because of the large molecules we are dealing with.

I think you underestimate the ability of microbes to survive in different environments. Take Bacillus anthracis, or anthrax. It's dormant spores can survive for decades to infect hosts later on in life. Imagine you're cleaning out an old attic, you kick up some dust, you breathe it in...

BAM

You have anthrax (well it's not that simple, but you get the idea). There are microbes that are called thermophiles, these badasses can survive up to 122^oC (251^oF). Other microbes, lithoautotrophs, survive purely on minerals. Microbes, specifically bacteria, are very capable at surviving in very hostile conditions.

While the conditions on a cigar may not be optimal for bacterial proliferation, cells can still grow and convert the different molecules into the byproducts we enjoy in a cigar. The slower processing of products is more likely due to the low reproduction rates of cells, not from spontaneous chemical conversion.

This post is just to show a different scientific view on the aging process of a cigar, I am in no means attacking you. I wanted to put forth information I've learned throughout my education that, I think, is pertinent to the conversation.

Reffy, thanks for that.

I am a barbarian and didn't understand most of it. I doff my hat to those such as yourself who take this line and seek to educate without preaching.

[PigFish]

No idea, I don't care about practice. Only discussing this for the joy of the academic exercise....

I just love this.... Mate, this is where some people get lost...

Folks, and I am speaking generally, for some of us cigar forums are not just about learning something. Some of us actually like to teach something... share something... laugh about something... and just have some fun that might be a bit out of the mainstream.

For all those who simply dismiss the 'egghead' comments, God be with you! You don't have to 'get it' from our perspective. You don't have to agree or disagree, you have to do nothing, but hopefully you get entertained!

One should understand, that for some of us, this type of conversation is entertaining. We are not proving really anything to anyone. We are organizing our own thoughts and hypotheses and stimulating our own neurons in the process and sharing them for your entertainment as well as our own. There does not have to be an agreement, or consensus, it just hast to be what we want to do to have a little fun...

Right or wrong, hats off to you guys! The read was great (I think) and it gives one more to think about... Perhaps with the data you can come to your own conclusion about the affects of O, O(2), or O(3)....

Or in spurs on a desire to educate yourself on the process.

Bravo gents...

-Piggy

[Smallclub]

I'm sure I age by reading this thread