Aging

[PigFish]

I'm sure I age by reading this thread

... for you, there is a zoom feature and glasses! Always here to help the aged...!

[Akela3rd]

Love this thread.

However, you haven't even touched on the concept of thermodynamic entropy relating to closed systems which, in the (very, and I mean veeeery) long term will lead to the breakdown of order to the point of a stable, neutral and timeless universe.

Ding ding! Round 2!

[Akela3rd]

And how this may affect cigars of course.

[reffy]

Love this thread.

However, you haven't even touched on the concept of thermodynamic entropy relating to closed systems which, in the (very, and I mean veeeery) long term will lead to the breakdown of order to the point of a stable, neutral and timeless universe.

Ding ding! Round 2!

The way I see it this would only mean that there is an endpoint (or maximum saturation) of desired products in the long run.

On a side note: if anyone wants a more detailed explanation of any of the underlying principles Fugu and myself discussed, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that was posted.

[Akela3rd]

I'd love to point out your basic misunderstanding of the concept of total universal entropy, but can't be arsed.

Look what happened last time...

[reffy]

I'd love to point out your basic misunderstanding of the concept of total universal entropy, but can't be arsed.

Look what happened last time...

Reactants in an isolated system will continue to react until a thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. But an argument for another time

[Fugu]

Reffy, as others have noticed, we won't come together on this one in this life.... ,

Simplifications or examples taken from other areas may be admissible but can be dangerous when they do affect or make alterations to vital core aspects of the true facts of a matter. One needs to be very careful about that. You are still taken in by two factual truncations.

> "enzymes lower Ea for reactions to occur at lower temperatures"

The essential point is, enzymes are needed to lower Ea in order to make reactions happen quickly enough to allow organisms perform physiological work at rates making their living possible at lower temperatures (lower than would be expected from the purely chemical kinetics of reactions). It's not that they won't happen at lower temps without. This is a physiological-function perspective, not a chemical one.
This - physiological - turnover rate, however, is irrelevant for and even not applicable to our cigars. We are dealing with a level of very different time scales.

> "I was saying that at room temperature (~70°F/~27°C) there is not enough energy input without enzymes for reactions to occur"

This, again, is very basically wrong. Please check out thermodynamics and reaction kinetics. It is not as schematic black-white as you'd like to believe. The likelihood of the event of a successful chemical transformation is a stochastic function. It also doesn't depend on the size of a substrate molecule as you stated in an earlier post. And this view of qualifying room temperature as being "low" temp is pretty much of anthropocentric nature, perhaps driven by the typical human relative-to-freezing-point perspective. Chemically and kinetically, at room temperature (70°F, 21°C) we are talking about temperatures of 294 K absolute. That in fact is pretty "hot" for a significant amount of thermal and thus kinetic energy being in the system for spontaneous chemical reactions to occur - depending of course on the specific reaction concerned.

Now, considering your comparison between the fermenting pile and storing tobacco at room temperature: At e.g. 20°C higher temp (314 K), a "model" chemical reaction will be running faster of course, but by far not "every" spontaneous chemical reaction, and it often is a cascade of reactions, will have been drawn to termination, as you postulate. Even not at such elevated temperatures - and we are talking about usually 30 to 90 days in fermentation, not years. And do keep in mind, each chemical transformation generates new reactants for new reactions (cf. Akelas remark), there is no endpoint (at least not in the too near future... ).

> "The answer is simple, they're not growing in optimal conditions."

Exactly. That's the point about it, and probably explaining the difference between our two views - The environmental conditions in the finished cigar are lying far outside the range for these bacteria to be active (unless of course you postulate a special cigar bacterium of extreme xerophilic capacity…). Here, they are not just not growing under suboptimal conditions at a very low rate. They are not growing at all. It simply is too dry, the water activity of the substrate is too low. It is not just that, by removing water, the osmolarity of the substrate is vastly enhanced. And there are other substances acting as preservatives. Dried, fermented tobacco therefore is a highly preserved product that represents a fairly hostile environment to microbial activity, with only a few fungi/mould being capable of feeding on that - provided the moisture rises out of range (well, who wouldn’t know…). Bacteria generally need much higher water activity levels than does mould, and freely available water is the limiting factor here. As long as I am not facing mould I don’t have to expect bacterial growth on my cigars.

Cheers

Paul

[reffy]

>Reffy, as others have noticed, we won't come together on this one in this life....

Haha maybe not. But reading your post it seems that I'm built on pillars of salt.

>This is a physiological-function perspective, not a chemical one.

Point taken I have, and will, admit that my perspective is not from an ecological one. My studies are based around a more anthropocentric model of biology.

>That in fact is pretty "hot" for a significant amount of thermal and thus kinetic energy being in the system for spontaneous chemical reactions to occur - depending of course on the specific reaction concerned.

I think our major discrepancies lie in the realm of 'how much?'.

I understand that reactions can occur at a very low rate, that enzymes only increase the likelihood of reaction between two substrates (as well as concentration, temp, etc.). I'll admit that I do simplify a lot of principles until a concern elevates it to a more complex level (which you have, and makes for a more fun experiment).

As you said my time-scale is most likely radically different than your area of study, but we once again end up at the question of 'how much?'. Is a 20^oC difference enough to have a significant effect in the long term? Are some products necessary for aging only going to be made within the environment of the bale? And if so what kind of end products are we (as the smokers) looking for? Questions I don't have the answer to and we probably won't get until proper research is done.

>Even not at such elevated temperatures - and we are talking about usually 30 to 90 days in fermentation, not years. And do keep in mind, each chemical transformation generates new reactants for new reactions (cf. Akelas remark), there is no endpoint (at least not in the too near future... ).

I'll beg ignorance for this one. I was operating under the impression that they stayed in bales for years. And yes, in the extreme long term (like Akelas was hinting at in his post, when the universe cools down and the last proton decays) eventually, between now and then, (hopefully) a cigar will have reached its full potential and was smoked (no matter which system is used). I was only trying to respond to him in the context of the hypothetical.

>As long as I am not facing mould I don’t have to expect bacterial growth on my cigars.

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. Put simply, you don't believe that microorganisms can survive in (correct me if I'm wrong) tobacco products in general, while I believe the contrary. I'll admit, that most of my research into this topic was experiments done in the short term (months, years) and could skew my view on this. However, I do believe you underestimate such microorganisms. Bacteria are extremely resilient, you say it's too dry for them. We keep our cigars at 70% rH, wouldn't moisture content here be enough? (This is where my current knowledge on moisture ends, I don't know much about surface-to-air ratios and the like).

To put in context what bacterium can do (as done in previous posts):

Clostridium difficile: scourge of hospitals. We actively try to kill this bug in hospitals because it is fatal to immuno-compromised patients. Unfortunately it persists despite our best efforts.

E. coli: probably the most recognizable bacterium. We see cases of infection by the O157-H7 variant of this bug every so often in our food, passing stringent FDA regulations.

To push my point, we see huge variations in where bacterium can survive. They can evolve under strong artificial selection (such as antibiotics) in only a couple generations depending on the bug. Bacterium are opportunists, if they have an acceptable media to grow, no matter how selective, they will (a bit of a generalization, but you get the idea). To meet in the middle here, I would say that it is at least possible (with reasonable doubt) that a microorganism can exist within this hostile environment. So yes, I am hypothesizing that it is possible that there is a xerophile within the cigar (under the situations you postulated). However, without knowing what surface moisture exists on/within a cigar, it is beyond my knowledge to hypothesize what kind of bacterium could exist (but if you know, I'd like to know).

Genuine question: If substrate moisture is too low for bacterium (i.e. immobilization of nutrients) wouldn't we see fixation of all available substrates? So, is there essentially a 'hard' limit on the amount of reactions we would see (based on the assumption that the substrate will form 'islands')?

I will say that the further on we talk about this, I am seeing the reasoning behind your perspective. That is, I've been focusing on a very short time-span, whereas your perspective focuses more on the long-term. I see merits and demerits of both systems, but as I think about it more your system seems more likely. In the function of the short term when there is more mobilized nutrients and bacterium can survive, which explains ammonia release in 'young' cigars. But in the long term you bring up a very valid point, osmolarity increases as moisture decreases. I can see, within that context, reactions forming spontaneously throughout the cigars lifetime.

So I do concede that now (after much debate) that your system seems more likely in the long term than mine. Due to the problem of moisture you mentioned. I agree that finding a xerophile in a cigar is highly unlikely (but not impossible! ), immobilization of nutrients is a very strong killer.

To put it simply, you convinced me . There are more factors which, when brought to light, casts doubt in my system, doubts that I can't explain away. So, thanks for that. Knowing more is better than knowing less!

Cheers

[Lotusguy]

I'm sure I age by reading this thread

Yes, but is it fermentation or aging?

[PigFish]

Yes, but is it fermentation or aging?

Reread the thread for the answer! Wait 48 hours, reread again, for a different one!!!

If you reread the thread enough, you will conclude fermentation has little to do with anything and lamentation has everything to do with everything!! -LOL

-Piggy

[El Presidente]

ken and I just smoked (and reviewed) a 2000 Upmann Monarch. I have smoked 24 of the 25 cigars from the box over 15 years.

Remarkable the change. Up next week as a video review.

[reffy]

Reread the thread for the answer! Wait 48 hours, reread again, for a different one!!!

If you reread the thread enough, you will conclude fermentation has little to do with anything and lamentation has everything to do with everything!! -LOL

-Piggy

If we keep going like this then maybe we'll even find out the answers to life haha.

[LGC]

Will my wife age slower if I wrap her in plastic??

[PigFish]

Will my wife age slower if I wrap her in plastic??

... plastic surgery maybe! My wife can attest to that!!! -Piggy

[PigFish]

If we keep going like this then maybe we'll even find out the answers to life haha.

I can answer that, but if I told you I would have to kill you. You might call it an anaerobic process! -Piggy

[PigFish]

ken and I just smoked (and reviewed) a 2000 Upmann Monarch. I have smoked 24 of the 25 cigars from the box over 15 years.

Remarkable the change. Up next week as a video review.

Mods:

Please remove this post... All this speculative non-sense does not belong in our well thought-out pseudo-scientific thread!

Rob, please ask Lisa about thread relevance before posting, for Gods sake!!! -LOL

-Piggy

[PapaDisco]

ken and I just smoked (and reviewed) a 2000 Upmann Monarch. I have smoked 24 of the 25 cigars from the box over 15 years.

Remarkable the change. Up next week as a video review.

Geez, what a low budget operation. Can't you guys afford any NEW cigars??

[Fugu]

ken and I just smoked (and reviewed) a 2000 Upmann Monarch. I have smoked 24 of the 25 cigars from the box over 15 years.

Remarkable the change. Up next week as a video review.

Yes, please no empirical verifications, pleeease!!!

[Fugu]

Sorry for the late reply, Reffy, didn't find the time to log on yesterday.

Great news that you could see some convincing info.
Just to briefly get back to some questions you were raising with your last post:

> As you said my time-scale is most likely radically different than your area of study, but we once again end up at the question of 'how much?'. Is a 20°C difference enough to have a significant effect in the long term?

It is a completely different process of course. But just in order to get you a figure, using an average Q10 of 2 to 2.5, a "model chemical reaction" would run about 4-6 times faster, well let's even take ten-times faster for such a deltaT. So roughly, for the same substrate (bond) turnover of a certain spontaneous chemical reaction after 30 days in the pile, almost a year would be needed at room temperature. However (!), in practice you simply cannot compare these two phases quality-wise, as the fermentation process and the elevated temps will lead to very different reactions and processes taking place (like your dough won't make you a cake at room temp if you only wait long enough...haha).

> I'll beg ignorance for this one. I was operating under the impression that they stayed in bales for years.

That is correct indeed. But that's a different phase in the tobacco processing. This storage in bales is for aging (where still some initial residual fermenting may be taking place). But this is then not running at elevated temperatures. The tobacco for filler and binder will be stored in bales made of cloth for aging; the delicate wrapper leaf is undergoing a milder fermentation process and will be stored in bales made of palm bark.
The period of vigorous fermentation we were talking about will be done in piles (burros) for binder and filler, and usually only for one month-45 days (volado) to three months (ligero), give and take.

> between now and then, (hopefully) a cigar will have reached its full potential and was smoked

Yes it is very hopefully us getting in between.... !

> Put simply, you don't believe that microorganisms can survive in (correct me if I'm wrong) tobacco products in general, while I believe the contrary.

Correct. Well - putting it precisely, I am not saying tobacco is a sterile product. There sure will be inactive forms like spores of bacteria or yeasts to be found on and in a cigar. But bacteria, like your E.coli for instance, which you'll certainly be able to find on a freshly rolled cigar (well, you may imagine...), will quite quickly have disappeared from it over time as they don't find favourable conditions in the finished product and are not producing spores.

> Bacteria are extremely resilient, you say it's too dry for them. We keep our cigars at 70% rH, wouldn't moisture content here be enough?

No, it won't. 70% rH (percent of saturation water capacity of air at a given temp) will still get you a comparatively dry tobacco substrate (on an absolute moisture scale and not on a cigar storage scale that is!). Our cigars will usually be balancing in at around 12% water content +/-. This is far outside the normal range for bacterial growth. Well, strictly and more precisely, it is not simply water content, it is the water activity a_w being the prime determinant of microbial growth (equilibrium moisture between the substrate in question and a surrounding closed atmosphere, comp. to that of pure water - Mr. PigFish is the expert here...), which will also reflect and comprise material-specific properties. I can't actually say, where we are with our cigars precisely in terms of water activity but a figure for 12% substrate moisture corresponds to a water activity of about 0.6 at room temp in tobacco (perhaps let's be consrevative and say a range of a_w 0.6-0.7). So, just some figures for a rough comparison for a quantitative assessment: Fungi, i.e. mould (e.g. Aspergillus) need about > 0.8 a_w for growth, most bacteria need well above 0.9 (only halophiles being lower, 0.75). When checking one of my older textbooks today, I found one example of a yeast, Saccharomyces rouxii, stated to be withstanding and growing at a_w of 0.6. But that was given as an example for the very extreme.

> Clostridium difficile: scourge of hospitals. We actively try to kill this bug in hospitals because it is fatal to immuno-compromised patients. Unfortunately it persists despite our best efforts.

Yes, but it is the spores that make it so difficult to kill off and get rooms disinfected. As long as sitting and waiting in a tile's seam (think 'tobacco') in a hospital room, they'll be inactive (i.e. not be metabolizing, like your earlier B. anthracis example), but once entering a human body, i.e. a suitable "substrate", they will be thriving again....

> E. coli: probably the most recognizable bacterium. We see cases of infection by the O157-H7 variant of this bug every so often in our food, passing stringent FDA regulations.

True - but E.coli always needs a moist environment to survive. So what are our substrate vectors for E.coli? - all come with a minimum water content, such as contaminated fruit and vegetable material (EHEC etc.), meat, tap water etc.. It simply needs water for survival. Yes, they might be hard to kill in an infested patient but they won't survive on dry matter.

> To push my point, we see huge variations in where bacterium can survive.

True, but in bacteria surviving is not always metabolizing!

> I agree that finding a xerophile in a cigar is highly unlikely (but not impossible! ),

Should you once find it, Reffy, please don't miss to affix 'fuguensis' behind your name for the epithet, in honour of the old unconvincible....

Cheers

Paul

[Tobbot]

ken and I just smoked (and reviewed) a 2000 Upmann Monarch. I have smoked 24 of the 25 cigars from the box over 15 years.

Remarkable the change. Up next week as a video review.

What are you guys gonna do with last one? I'm just throwing this out there ... A CageFight ... Winner takes all!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

In addition to the above mentioned, here is a citation from a 2005 paper from Contr. Tobacco Res. where they studied the formation of nitrosamines during curing (i.e. the drying process of the fresh leaf) under different temp/humidity regimes:

"Assuming that the cell membrane breakage,

and thus leakage of the cell content into the intercellular

spaces, occurs when the water content in the

tobacco is below 70% (13), the cell membrane breakage in

the lamina occurred on average after three days of curing.

The water activity limit for the growth of most bacteria, 0.9

(14), was reached after five days, leaving two days for

microbial activity on average. In the midrib the cell membrane

breakage occurred after 11 days and water activity

declined to under 0.9 after 14 days. This shows that the

curing schedules used in the experiments resulted in a

rather short window of time for bacterial growth after the

cell breakage, both in the lamina and the midrib, and thus

for nitrite and TSNA formation."

[PigFish]

In addition to the above mentioned, here is a citation from a 2005 paper from Contr. Tobacco Res. where they studied the formation of nitrosamines during curing (i.e. the drying process of the fresh leaf) under different temp/humidity regimes:

"Assuming that the cell membrane breakage,

and thus leakage of the cell content into the intercellular

spaces, occurs when the water content in the

tobacco is below 70% (13), the cell membrane breakage in

the lamina occurred on average after three days of curing.

The water activity limit for the growth of most bacteria, 0.9

(14), was reached after five days, leaving two days for

microbial activity on average. In the midrib the cell membrane

breakage occurred after 11 days and water activity

declined to under 0.9 after 14 days. This shows that the

curing schedules used in the experiments resulted in a

rather short window of time for bacterial growth after the

cell breakage, both in the lamina and the midrib, and thus

for nitrite and TSNA formation."

... that is just over the top... What hogwash... -LOL

Where is this board going? Are there not new ELs and REs to talk about (again)? -Piggy

[Fugu]

... that is just over the top... What hogwash... -LOL

Where is this board going? Are there not new ELs and REs to talk about (again)? -Piggy

Ok, I shall stop it now -

.... hey, but not before having checked my incubator with the newly set up test series of Coli-infused tobacco strips...

Will report back shortly.

[Orion21]

... that is just over the top... What hogwash... -LOL

Where is this board going? Are there not new ELs and REs to talk about (again)? -Piggy

Piggy has found is Moriarty!!! This is going to be great