Help me write a brief for a Mycologist.

[NSXCIGAR]

If we can somehow involve monkeys in this it's possible we can obtain government funding. 

Seriously, I think this is a great idea. The first definitive study on the nature of substances that form on cigars. Could become the ultimate resource and cited universally. 

[Fugu]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Festa said:

LOL!!! Rubbish. It is the perfect amount at the perfect time.

Why exactly again...? LOL!!!

Seems we got a true scientist here. Yes, let's keep it simple and believe in what we believe is right! - I always love that. In particular if complacently voiced by the unsuspecting (with respect, not addressed at you J). The likely reason for a decades-long debate and why we still don't know.

Want to really learn something with an open mind? Or just fishing for a confirmation of preformed opinions?

[busdriver]

Its alive!

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, BuzzArd said:

I'll contribute some "plume" pictures if you like. Have a nice VSG that fairly glistens.   Also, have had several Opus that came out of tins that had  ample plume coverage.

Hell, if you need 'em I'll send 'em to you.  

I would be happy to provide you my expert opinion if you want to send me some examples!!!! 

[Jeremy Festa]

10 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Why exactly again...? LOL!!!

Seems we got a true scientist here. Yes, let's keep it simple and believe in what we believe is right! - I always love that. In particular if complacently voiced by the unsuspecting (with respect, not addressed at you J). The likely reason for a decades-long debate and why we still don't know.

Want to really learn something with an open mind? Or just fishing for a confirmation of preformed opinions?

Just finding the happy medium between, searching in the dark, and having a tiny flashlight. 

Confidence in expected results 'can' be a good thing. Can be embarrassing. I don't mind being embarrassed. Especially when the by-product is surprise. 

[canadianbeaver]

Blume or ploom, the opinion wiill vary. We don't bite. Same with bloom or plume. 

Especially on bubble gum cigars.

[Denali_21]

Might be easiest to find someone with some well sealed/cellared pipe tobacco.  Its much more common to find bloom/plume on pipe tobacco that has been aged and well sealed I believe.   Below is a great forum post from Pipes Magazine about the topic: 

FROM PIPE:

Here's how all of this started. I hate Balkan Sobranie. I bought some tins of it and opened the first tin on October 27, 2014. Tried it - and just couldn't enjoy it. Left it sealed in a Ball Mason jar and sold my remaining tins. So tonight, while looking for a tobacco to smoke, I pulled out the jar of Balkan Sobranie and thought "what the heck? I'll try this again." So when I opened the jar, this awaited me:

Yup - the tobacco is covered with what I know to be "tobacco bloom," not mold. Then I lit up a bowl and WOW!!!! This stuff is amazing! Sweet, ripe, fruit, light though - not the deep tangy flavors of my preferred Virginias.

Here's where the science comes in. My son is home visiting, and he's a research biologist working on his Ph.D. in Human and Molecular Genetics at the top genetics research facility in the country, if not the world. He took one look and said "I can tell you exactly what that is." Not only is he home, his original tabletop microscope is still here. (Apparently even a $500-$1,000 microscope is a joke for someone sequencing and artificially rearranging DNA for his job, so we have a nice microscope sitting here collecting dust). Anyway - he took a piece of the tobacco, prepared a slide, and showed me exactly what was on the tobacco:

1) Sugar Crystals
2) Yeast. Specifically S. Cerevisae, also known commonly as Budding Yeast.

Then he explained the biological processes taking place in the tobacco from the time it was tinned until opened and then ultimately smoked.

First - Tobacco is sealed in the tin and yeast rapidly consumes all of the oxygen in the tin. He figured that could happen in mere weeks.

Second - the yeast eats the starches and complex carbohydrates in the tobacco, leaving behind the sugar crystals AND Aromatics. No - not aromatics like the goop added to aromatic tobacco, but "carbon rings" called aromatics because they do in fact have distinctive taste. That process continues until the yeast population is saturated and the reaction mostly stops.

Third - you open the tin. If you smoke a bowl right then you'll get a mix of the tobacco, with its natural starches and sugars, plus the sugars and aromatics created by the yeast.

Fourth - the tin, once opened, re-introduces oxygen to the system. The oxygen oxidizes the aromatic rings, modifying their flavor profile. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Maybe for better, maybe for worse. Just depends on what the individual doing the smoking seems to prefer.

Fifth - the oxidized carbon rings are more stable than the original carbon compounds, so once they've oxidized, they're done and no amount of aging/storing will convert them back. What's happened is the ratio of original starch to aromatic rings to oxidized rings has permanently changed and the ratio from when the tin is first opened will never be back.

That's why aged is different from fresh, and why once a tin is opened many people notice a substantial change after only a week or two.

Hopefully I made at least a little sense. I'm sure my son could write a ten page paper to explain in more detail what I just tried to summarize.

 

END

 

It would be interesting to see what effect a perfectly sealed environment (with humidification) could produce??  Either way, looking forward to seeing more on this!

[PigFish]

9 hours ago, Fugu said:

Way too much preconception and interpretation already!

I'd second this.

1. step:

Microbiologist needed with specialization in mycology (micromycetes) and perhaps / ideally in unit with molecular biology.
Tasks - a) Macroscopic assessment - presence of cells/mycelium/sporangia/conidiophores vs. non-organismic matter? Perhaps biochemical/immunological identific. tests, too (or what else lab has to offer). b ) Isolation and identification of organisms to the lowest taxonomic level possible, i.e. genus --> species and perhaps even --> strain.

2. step

Everything else which is of non-organismic nature ("bloom") - off it goes to the next specialist, which should be an analytical chemist.
Tasks - Identification of the chemical nature of found substances and relating it to the expressed form and structure.

 

Best would surely be to have an institution where those specialists collaborate interdisciplinary. I guess such would have to be looked for in the 'Toxicological' or 'Food and Drug' or 'Botanical-Pharmaceutical' and/or 'Biotechnological' or even 'Tobacco' related research institutes and departments. I guess best chances to find the right group of specialists would be somewhere in the toxicological and pharmaceutical sector. I think some thorough web-search should come at first in order to return some scientific publications in that field or as close as possible to that field.

Then, the tasks should be defined as precisely as possible, in order to clarify a) scope, effort and necessary time for such an analysis (study?). And b ) whether it could probably be done by or with the help of a masters student or a postgraduate. Is it possible to be done within the normal insitute's research routine, do they provide the necessary expertise? Does it thematically fit in? What will be the costs involved (will donating a new computer do)? Can costs be shared or reduced when results will be utilized and published by the participating entities? Or will it have to be carried out as a plain contract task, which then has to be fully paid for? Can it perhaps alternatively also be done by a normal accredited material-and-environmental-analysis lab?

FOH-task as to the sticks to be analysed: Provenance and history of sticks/boxes with regard to storage conditions should be known as precisely as possible and be possible to be traced back to time of first purchase. Forms of structures to be closely recorded (photos, descriptions etc.), noted and categorized.

Will be quite important to find the right people, who are experienced with such kind of stuff, and who know what they are doing. Otherwise it's easy to snafu results.

E.g. it is quite conceivable that there will be a mixture of substances, i.e. forms of bloom and mould forming simultaneously on the cigar's surface. Such a mix / compound will need to undergo a differentiated analysis. Relative importance of both, which is which? Also, e.g. bringing a few inactive fungal spores sitting on a bit of cigar surface to growth in culture may lead to completely erroneous results.... Tricky thing also is a particular substrate specifity of species. Fungal species that are found growing on cigars will be xerophilic, i.e. living on "dry" matter. They won't be brought into culture in the lab on the wrong substrate and/or would be quickly overgrown by other species whose spores will also be found on cigars, but which are actually irrelevant as they won't grow there. Plain genetic testing (DNA analysis) on the other hand might also bring in biases with regard to true total abundances, if sample preparation will not be carried out adequately.

So, it will be crucial to find the right lab and to get the right specialists engaged in order to get to meaningful results.

 

I like this Gooey!

Some other things come to mind here, and as my mind is a bit befuddled, a few too many drugs in my system of late, I see one more aspect that needs discussion.

A panel of cigar smokers who can witness the cigar and identify (confidentially without influence by others) the substance on the cigars. I suppose we need clean cigars with high resolution photos for a great number of smokers to blindly assess.

Plume, bloom etcetera is a matter of personal interpretation at this point. With that being the case, at least some smokers would have to concur that what is found on the surface of the cigars mentioned would be recognized as something other than mold, to be defined as plume. Then that substance could be identified. Then there needs to be a great enough incidence to call the experiment conclusive.

As plume is a creation of the smoking world, it would be important that the ocular aspect of the suspect cigars be readily identifiable by those that consider themselves, or by those considered by others to be in-the-know. Some smokers need to agree that 'a' visible substance represents plume. That substance needs to be something other than mold. It needs to be found and agreed upon in more than one instance to be representative of anything other than an aberration.

If cigar smokers cannot agree on what plume 'looks like' then there is no real need in finding substances on the surface of the cigar that we cannot see, recognize, agree upon and identify. As there is no definitive reference for plume, it could look different to everyone asked. Cigar smokers must be able to define their own terms with a reference and description, regardless of what it is, and then agree on the reference for the term itself to be defined.

My 2 pennies! -R

[Jeremy Festa]

22 minutes ago, Denali_21 said:

Might be easiest to find someone with some well sealed/cellared pipe tobacco.  Its much more common to find bloom/plume on pipe tobacco that has been aged and well sealed I believe.   Below is a great forum post from Pipes Magazine about the topic: 

FROM PIPE:

Here's how all of this started. I hate Balkan Sobranie. I bought some tins of it and opened the first tin on October 27, 2014. Tried it - and just couldn't enjoy it. Left it sealed in a Ball Mason jar and sold my remaining tins. So tonight, while looking for a tobacco to smoke, I pulled out the jar of Balkan Sobranie and thought "what the heck? I'll try this again." So when I opened the jar, this awaited me:

Yup - the tobacco is covered with what I know to be "tobacco bloom," not mold. Then I lit up a bowl and WOW!!!! This stuff is amazing! Sweet, ripe, fruit, light though - not the deep tangy flavors of my preferred Virginias.

Here's where the science comes in. My son is home visiting, and he's a research biologist working on his Ph.D. in Human and Molecular Genetics at the top genetics research facility in the country, if not the world. He took one look and said "I can tell you exactly what that is." Not only is he home, his original tabletop microscope is still here. (Apparently even a $500-$1,000 microscope is a joke for someone sequencing and artificially rearranging DNA for his job, so we have a nice microscope sitting here collecting dust). Anyway - he took a piece of the tobacco, prepared a slide, and showed me exactly what was on the tobacco:

1) Sugar Crystals
2) Yeast. Specifically S. Cerevisae, also known commonly as Budding Yeast.

Then he explained the biological processes taking place in the tobacco from the time it was tinned until opened and then ultimately smoked.

First - Tobacco is sealed in the tin and yeast rapidly consumes all of the oxygen in the tin. He figured that could happen in mere weeks.

Second - the yeast eats the starches and complex carbohydrates in the tobacco, leaving behind the sugar crystals AND Aromatics. No - not aromatics like the goop added to aromatic tobacco, but "carbon rings" called aromatics because they do in fact have distinctive taste. That process continues until the yeast population is saturated and the reaction mostly stops.

Third - you open the tin. If you smoke a bowl right then you'll get a mix of the tobacco, with its natural starches and sugars, plus the sugars and aromatics created by the yeast.

Fourth - the tin, once opened, re-introduces oxygen to the system. The oxygen oxidizes the aromatic rings, modifying their flavor profile. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Maybe for better, maybe for worse. Just depends on what the individual doing the smoking seems to prefer.

Fifth - the oxidized carbon rings are more stable than the original carbon compounds, so once they've oxidized, they're done and no amount of aging/storing will convert them back. What's happened is the ratio of original starch to aromatic rings to oxidized rings has permanently changed and the ratio from when the tin is first opened will never be back.

That's why aged is different from fresh, and why once a tin is opened many people notice a substantial change after only a week or two.

Hopefully I made at least a little sense. I'm sure my son could write a ten page paper to explain in more detail what I just tried to summarize.

 

END

 

It would be interesting to see what effect a perfectly sealed environment (with humidification) could produce??  Either way, looking forward to seeing more on this!

AMAZING.

 

 

 

[Sean3]

On 1/3/2017 at 1:26 AM, Fuzz said:

If you find a new mould, you can name it after yourself!

White Mould -  Sclerotinia Robonium Abstergeo

Green/Black Mould - Stachybotrys Robonium Abiciendi

Nice Fuzz!

[MaxG]

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

A panel of cigar smokers who can witness the cigar and identify (confidentially without influence by others) the substance on the cigars. I suppose we need clean cigars with high resolution photos for a great number of smokers to blindly assess.

Plume, bloom etcetera is a matter of personal interpretation at this point. With that being the case, at least some smokers would have to concur that what is found on the surface of the cigars mentioned would be recognized as something other than mold, to be defined as plume. Then that substance could be identified. Then there needs to be a great enough incidence to call the experiment conclusive.

As plume is a creation of the smoking world, it would be important that the ocular aspect of the suspect cigars be readily identifiable by those that consider themselves, or by those considered by others to be in-the-know.

 

 

But aren't we embarking on this journey for precisely the reason that, as we've so recently seen, we can't agree on identification of what we're seeing on some cigars?  It's very rare to hear someone say they don't "know" what's on their cigar.  It's just that someone else "knows" it's something completely different.   I think I get where you're coming from, and I really think there is much more consensus on this than we're acknowledging.  It would be interesting to know exactly how plume is produced, why is it rare, can it be replicated, can any cigar produce plume under those conditions, etc... but it seems even after someone way smarter than me can tell us definitively "why, that stuff is WhatTheHellium NoIdeaius" some of us will say, "yep, and that's just another name for plume" while others will say, well, otherwise.  I guess if we could get two (or more) examples of stuff growing on cigars that a solid consensus agrees are different things, then we can have someone tell us what those different things are. 

When we finally all agree that what is on cigar A is definitely different that what is on cigar B, and the scientist comes back and tells us they're the exact same thing, we can tackle something else in 2018!  lol

 

- MG

 

 

[Hurltim]

To me the FOB, (Fist Order of Business) is to gather as many examples of moldy, bloomy and plume-ey cigars as you can and have them tested either with gas chromatography or microscope to determine what each substance actually is.
This should generate a list of common substances found on these cigars and most likely a method for identifying them.
I see an FOH Plume Identification Kit in the future...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Hurltim]

@PigFish out of curiosity, do any of your cigars have plume on them? Just curious. There is an article that has been posted here and elsewhere that says there are two types of bloom/plume: One caused by low rH and one caused by high rH. Seeing as how you most likely have the most controlled humidor here, I would be curious to know if any of your cigars have bloom/plume.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[PigFish]

13 minutes ago, Hurltim said:

@PigFish out of curiosity, do any of your cigars have plume on them? Just curious. There is an article that has been posted here and elsewhere that says there are two types of bloom/plume: One caused by low rH and one caused by high rH. Seeing as how you most likely have the most controlled humidor here, I would be curious to know if any of your cigars have bloom/plume.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

... that is a good question. As I am not the 'pick through the boxes' type, I am pretty sure that I have numerous boxes that I have either never looked at, or looked at only as a matter of receiving them. Frankly, I don't know. My neck injury precludes me from doing too much of this today. The humidors in the shop are one thing, they are elevated as I work and test them. Others are floor standing, and I don't see myself even attempting at unstacking those.

Some years ago some of us had another interesting thread about plume. I have noticed over the years that some cigars that were presented were from often SLB or bare wood boxes. In my experience, I have found a lot of loose sawdust in those boxes, and as a general note concluded that the pictures of others cigars, many from SLB boxes were in fact saw dust! MHO.

I owe a member here a Monte 1 Esp. from '99. I am pretty sure those boxes are in the shop. So I will dig those out and have a look. Most of what I have from the mid-nineties and before are straggler singles. I am not a collector of old and rare but there are quite a few guys around that have a lot of that stuff. How they store it, I don't know. I am a smoker, and not one of them (collector of rarities)! That may well be the place to look.

Along the lines here, i wanted to make a comment on the recently removed thread. Without digging at open wounds, I have to wonder if some vendors make a distinction between what they consider 'active' or 'living mold' verses dormant 'dead' mold? When analyzing how they speak, I have to wonder if this distinction is being made or if I am cutting them too much slack. Again, just me thinking outside the box!

I see dormant mold as mold... But who knows what terms another may apply.

Cheers all! -Piggy

[Hurltim]

... that is a good question. As I am not the 'pick through the boxes' type, I am pretty sure that I have numerous boxes that I have either never looked at, or looked at only as a matter of receiving them. Frankly, I don't know. My neck injury precludes me from doing too much of this today. The humidors in the shop are one thing, they are elevated as I work and test them. Others are floor standing, and I don't see myself even attempting at unstacking those.

Some years ago some of us had another interesting thread about plume. I have noticed over the years that some cigars that were presented were from often SLB or bare wood boxes. In my experience, I have found a lot of loose sawdust in those boxes, and as a general note concluded that the pictures of others cigars, many from SLB boxes were in fact saw dust! MHO.

I owe a member here a Monte 1 Esp. from '99. I am pretty sure those boxes are in the shop. So I will dig those out and have a look. Most of what I have from the mid-nineties and before are straggler singles. I am not a collector of old and rare but there are quite a few guys around that have a lot of that stuff. How they store it, I don't know. I am a smoker, and not one of them (collector of rarities)! That may well be the place to look.

Along the lines here, i wanted to make a comment on the recently removed thread. Without digging at open wounds, I have to wonder if some vendors make a distinction between what they consider 'active' or 'living mold' verses dormant 'dead' mold? When analyzing how they speak, I have to wonder if this distinction is being made or if I am cutting them too much slack. Again, just me thinking outside the box!

I see dormant mold as mold... But who knows what terms another may apply.

Cheers all! -Piggy

I would certainly consider you one of the best candidates to validate/disprove/cast doubt on (relatively speaking, of course) the thesis posed by the article that bloom is caused by cigars being in extreme rH variances. You are the perfect candidate really--You have more than a few old cigars in a strictly controlled storage environment.

I certainly wouldn't want you to rush out and check them given your new Neck Bling, but when your curiosity gets too much, I would love to know what you find.
At least according to the article (I didn't want to resurrect the thread you were referring to so I didn't link to it) bloom/plume is a negative and indicative of poor storage conditions. I would think think that vendors would clue in on that if it were true.
Interesting subject.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Dave001]

whatever you do, do not I repeat do not ask for ajays opinion

[PigFish]

23 minutes ago, Hurltim said:

I would certainly consider you one of the best candidates to validate/disprove/cast doubt on (relatively speaking, of course) the thesis posed by the article that bloom is caused by cigars being in extreme rH variances. You are the perfect candidate really--You have more than a few old cigars in a strictly controlled storage environment.

I certainly wouldn't want you to rush out and check them given your new Neck Bling, but when your curiosity gets too much, I would love to know what you find.
At least according to the article (I didn't want to resurrect the thread you were referring to so I didn't link to it) bloom/plume is a negative and indicative of poor storage conditions. I would think think that vendors would clue in on that if it were true.
Interesting subject.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 

I appreciate the confidence but I have to wonder if my partaking would be a good thing. The fact is, I am so cynical when it comes to collectors and speculators, that I work from the position of, if they believe it, there is a good reason to question it, position. This makes me biased.

Having known 'some' and knowing how 'some' behave and unfortunately lie, I am no longer objective. I am often the guy in trouble for playing the 'man.' -LOL

Most of you know me as a guy that is outside the box. I don't accept 'all' convention as any evidence of proof of anything. That might make me unfit.

I used to be more open minded about plume. In hundreds of years of tobacco production, as it has not be verified and classified, I tend to disbelieve it, and if some form of it exists, it has zero intrinsic value to me. I have to side with Goo... I would prefer elements that come in my finished cigar to stay in my finished cigar! I cannot think that something 'growing' on it is a positive. Sounds too much like collector hog wash to me!

-Piggy

[El Presidente]

Cheers for the input 

I have had a few guys reach out who have experience in the field. 

We are well on track to determine the "scope" of works by end January. 

The next step is pulling aside cigars with differing types of mold as well as  plume. Help us out with that one. I will ask you to touch base in Feb. 

When we have the requisite samples (across the spectrum) in our hands, then we will photograph (normal lense and macro) and tag each. Again February. 

From there it is off to the lab for analysis of each. March. 

[zeedubbya]

I know a shop which has "Plumey" (cough Bullsh*%t) examples aplenty.  I'll pick up a few and send if you want?  They're NCs of course?  Will that make a difference?

[El Presidente]

8 minutes ago, zeedubbya said:

I know a shop which has "Plumey" (cough Bullsh*%t) examples aplenty.  I'll pick up a few and send if you want?  They're NCs of course?  Will that make a difference?

They could be Nigerian Cheroots for all I care 

White/blue/green/black.....and plume...all good 

[JLFIRST]

step one....whatever is on the wrapper.......confirm if a mould....and identify it  (white/blue/green....fuchsia) + a big long name. 

If not a mould ....and he/she cannot identify.....then off to the next step in a biologist or whoever they recommend. 

 

I would love to help with this. I've worked in the R&D side of tobacco for many years. I've developed many brands and new products along with having to do the Analytical work on these tobaccos used in my blends.
A good Compound Microscope and One to get down much further is needed. Having A GC and Mass Spec will give you all the info on the aromatics you'll need.
If you'd like any help, just lemme know!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

15 hours ago, PigFish said:

If cigar smokers cannot agree on what plume 'looks like' then there is no real need in finding substances on the surface of the cigar that we cannot see, recognize, agree upon and identify. As there is no definitive reference for plume, it could look different to everyone asked. Cigar smokers must be able to define their own terms with a reference and description, regardless of what it is, and then agree on the reference for the term itself to be defined.

Good point and basically agree on this problem. And that is why I would rather recommend not to label or pre-interpret structures in any way in advance (reasoning for my statement to Jeremy). We - Rob, or a panel of FOH members, as you suggest - should "simply" describe (as comprehensively as possible) and document what they see (and smell), perhaps add a "suspicion" of what it might be, but nothing more. Send it away for analysis and see what we get. Only at hindsight, we may then hopefully be able to classify what it is - or perhaps not.... That will probably be up to some surprise. But I think it will be important to approach this whole thing as much unprejudiced as possible.

Anyhow, as soon as a suitable lab or work group has been identified, the particular study set-up needs to be discussed and agreed upon closely with the scientists involved anyway.

[Westside Threat]

One of my local B&M has an ungodly amount of "plume" as well.  When I asked the owner about it he said plume could develop in just a couple of weeks 

If you need any samples I would be more than happy to send.  

[Jeremy Festa]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Good point and basically agree on this problem. And that is why I would rather recommend not to label or pre-interpret structures in any way in advance (reasoning for my statement to Jeremy). We - Rob, or a panel of FOH members, as you suggest - should "simply" describe (as comprehensively as possible) and document what they see (and smell), perhaps add a "suspicion" of what it might be, but nothing more. Send it away for analysis and see what we get. Only at hindsight, we may then hopefully be able to classify what it is - or perhaps not.... That will probably be up to some surprise. But I think it will be important to approach this whole thing as much unprejudiced as possible.

Anyhow, as soon as a suitable lab or work group has been identified, the particular study set-up needs to be discussed and agreed upon closely with the scientists involved anyway.

100%. Very surprised with Denali's post. Didn't even think about the possibility and process the starches could play. 

Without being an idiot, although I cannot help myself, are the crystaline structures actually sugars? Are they the by-product of moulds, or precursor to them?

All incredibly interesting and exciting at this point! 

[Jeremy Festa]

Big key factor is that sugars are affected by temperatures. While salts are not. Unless frozen.