FOH Mould Study

[ElPuro]

Great stuff from many different angles. A service to the cigar community, and great marketing. 

[Fuzz]

3 hours ago, Notsocleaver said:

So what you are saying is that somewhere out there is a currently undocumented strain of bacteria unknown to science, but commonly observed by cigar smokers, allowing them to some how identify the finest tobacco by what grows on it? What should we call it then? Staphylococcus Plumeus?

Staphylyococcus Ayala

[GavLew79]

6 hours ago, Notsocleaver said:

So what you are saying is that somewhere out there is a currently undocumented strain of bacteria unknown to science, but commonly observed by cigar smokers, allowing them to some how identify the finest tobacco by what grows on it? What should we call it then? Staphylococcus Plumeus?

I say "Staphylococcus Bullshiticus".

[ayepatz]

Fascinating. Great stuff. ?

[Colt45]

8 hours ago, El Presidente said:

An interesting point to raise here though, the appearance of the matter on the cigars while cataloging under macro was dusty. Dust is a rich source of bacteria so that may explain the results?

I think that the above is perhaps the most enlightening to me.

That hit me as well - well done guys, and thanks again for the efforts 

[mkz]

Great update.

I guess the moral of the story is: wash your hands before handling your cigars!!!

[KnightsAnole]

Were any of the cigars with ‘plume’ stored in cello? I wonder if cello would affect, in a positive or negative way, these mold and bacterial growths? Great work guys, this is fascinating.

[GrouchoMarx]

A bit confused here - what exactly is "plume" supposed to be?

Is it not possible that what has been referred to as plume may actually be some type of mold or bacteria?

Not knowing much of anything about the issue.....I am curious.

[Shaunster]

1 hour ago, GrouchoMarx said:

A bit confused here - what exactly is "plume" supposed to be?

Is it not possible that what has been referred to as plume may actually be some type of mold or bacteria?

Not knowing much of anything about the issue.....I am curious.

Whatever plume is, Mr Orchant seems to think he knows https://www.cgarsltd.co.uk/cigar-library/plume_or_mould.html 

[westg]

Nice write up Greg . Thanks

[westg]

A couple of those picks look like the steaks I burnt tonight

[CaptainQuintero]

3 hours ago, GrouchoMarx said:

A bit confused here - what exactly is "plume" supposed to be?

Is it not possible that what has been referred to as plume may actually be some type of mold or bacteria?

Not knowing much of anything about the issue.....I am curious.

It's supposedly the migration of oils from the tobacco to the wrapper which then form into crystals, and only happens in perfectly kept cigars. Even more oily a cigar the better the flavour, the better the quality of an aged cigar as it has the proof in the plume showing.

But turns out it's a load of old bollocks

 

[BJRPorter]

So, if I’m properly assimilating the results of both rounds of testing:

1. Came back as mold

2. Came back as bacteria, and one positive for fungi.

I would have expected the same exact results from both rounds in order to form any sort of conclusion about the existence of plume.

I’m in agriculture in the U.S., and over the last decade laboratory testing of soil, seeds, tissues, and water has become much more standardized, and enforced by multiple agencies, public and private. I do not have a science background, but I do know testing is biased to exactly what you are looking for. If s lab does not know what the chemical make-up of what “plume” is, they can not test for it.

Therefor, differing results between the two tests only proves that a third test may yield a completely different result of the first two.

Plume may exist in the samples tested, as well as bacteria, mold, and fungi. The lab does not have a test for plume.

Two rounds of testing with different results proves to me, that I do not have enough information to conclusively say anything. And that there is an argument for more testing.

[Shaunster]

20 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

It's supposedly the migration of oils from the tobacco to the wrapper which then form into crystals, and only happens in perfectly kept cigars. Even more oily a cigar the better the flavour, the better the quality of an aged cigar as it has the proof in the plume showing.

But turns out it's a load of old bollocks

 

It doesnt make sense anyway, if the oils are what give the cigar its flavour, then a cigar whose oils have migrated somehow outside the cigar is therefor surely a less flavoursome cigar?  

[Fugu]

This is another fine example of the circumstance that, in science, it is not enough to simply lab-test "something", you also need to know exactly what you are doing and what you are aiming to achieve. Taking those findings as they are, witthout any critical consideration and evaluation of what has been done (analytically) will inevitably lead us onto the wrong track. The conclusions drawn here, so far, are simply false. I'll explain:

First, bacteria can be isolated from any surface of any material on this planet that hasn't been sterilized. So the prime question is - how did the lab do the analysis? Activating the odd bacterium or bacterial spores and getting them to grow on an agar-plate doesn't tell us anything about their significance in real life, i.e. in the "white substances" isolated. (microbial isolating techniques, substrate specifity of culture media and tests alone will already have a huge selective influence on the outcome.)

Second, bacterial growth - active that is - and furthermore it then even forming visible colonies on a cigar is highly unlikely, I will even say impossible to happen (this is not the first debate on the matter). Prevailing water activities in cigar tobacco, even if kept on the moister end of the spectrum, are just too low to facilitate significant bacterial growth on a cigar. Before you see a bacterium growing you will see mould!

This remark by Greg is the essential one:

15 hours ago, Ferrero said:

An interesting point to raise here though, the appearance of the matter on the cigars while cataloging under macro was dusty.

Of course will we see bacterial matter on or in the matrix of these (presumably) non-organismic substances on the pipe tobacco. The white stuff on those plug and flake samples there, will mostly be sugars and/or other crystaline substances. You can even taste that when holding bits of such a piece of flake tobacco to your tongue. Here, e.g. we can even very nicely see the formation of spiny crystals in the pics of samples Lot #4 and Lot #11. As Greg rightly suspects, the lab will have isolated and cultivated bacteria that are found together with this matter.

So for me, the important take home message of this study and the main conclusion to be drawn is - in addition to the microbial analyses, the white stuff has always to be analysed as well for its chemical composition. At the very least the proportions of its main components need be determined in order to be able to come up with any useful information. The inclusion of pipe tobacco, though not being comparable to the cigar leaf per se, was indeed a good idea, as it helped disclosing the importance of this aspect.

Apols for adding a slightly more critical comment here, but I am a bit suprised and I'd actually to a degree challenge the lab for their scientific qualification if they didn't accompany their analyses with some additional words of caution regarding the interpretation of those results.

Anyway nice work, which actually points out the need for further investigation. Thanks to the team for doing all this!

[GrouchoMarx]

This thread is serving to confuse me more.

All I know about "plume" is:

!: what the wingnuts on CA's website say (I somehow don't think they have enough mayo in their tuna salada)

and

2. What the dictionary says, which makes zero mention of cigars.

So, I'm just wondering if  is referred to as "plume" is really some type of mold?

Or am I just blithering nonsense? (as my wife so often tells me) 

[El Presidente]

5 hours ago, BJRPorter said:

So, if I’m properly assimilating the results of both rounds of testing:

 

You can't as we kept out of this testing all those which were obviously replicants of the first testing batch (obvious fuzzy growths etal). 

This batch was about "dusting" and possible crystalline structures from the naked eye.  different batch selection, different results. 

[Colt45]

4 hours ago, GrouchoMarx said:

So, I'm just wondering if  is referred to as "plume" is really some type of mold?

That seems to be the case.

[El Presidente]

5 hours ago, Fugu said:

At the very least the proportions of its main components need be determined in order to be able to come up with any useful information. The inclusion of pipe tobacco, though not being comparable to the cigar leaf per se, was indeed a good idea, as it helped disclosing the importance of this aspect.

 

Oh it can be done but there is a risk.  The risk being that something is found that causes some knuckle to press the biosecurity alert button. Long odds but our boisecurity boffins are feverish in their jobs and rightfully so. We were actually advised earlier on in the process by one of the leading scientists  in the field here not to go too far down the identification path. there is no need.  

What we are trying to achieve is not the breakdown of moulds and bacteria. It is the discovery of a crystalline structure that is not mould or bacteria. 

That's it for stage one. Stage two (when and if discovered) is to breakdown that structure and determine how it is formed. 

Keep it simple but feel free to use your own coin to find out the bacterial strains 

 

[madandana]

Fascinating stuff. Great job Greg and thanks Rob!

[Fugu]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Keep it simple but feel free to use your own coin to find out the bacterial strains 

  

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

What we are trying to achieve is not the breakdown of moulds and bacteria. It is the discovery of a crystalline structure that is not mould or bacteria.

That's exactly what I am aiming at, Rob!

I am not interested at all in any of those bacterial strains. Simply, because they aren't of relevance here, at least not to us cigar smokers (reread my post - bacteria don't grow on cigars). But ruling out any further look into the chemical nature of said "white stuff" as soon as any organism - be it of fungal or bacterial origin - is being found, will leave you in the dark (no pun intended). That's the point. Putting step one "not finding any microorganism" as a requirement in front of step two "checking the chemical composition" of the white stuff, will inevitably be doomed for failure. Tobacco isn't sterile, so under the appropriate culture conditions you'll always find "something".

There's a main flaw in reasoning here: Finding a bacterium per se in the analysis doesn't mean that it is the very component (mainly) forming the "white substance". In most cases of what we see here on the flake tobacco - it will be crystallized sugars (contaminated with bacterial cells or spores) from the moistening, sweetening and flavouring juices. In actual fact, due to the particular production process of plug and the generally higher moisture content of pipe tobacco - the current result of detecting more bacteria this time is actually far from being surprising.

[Lotusguy]

Whatever plume is, Mr Orchant seems to think he knows https://www.cgarsltd.co.uk/cigar-library/plume_or_mould.html 

Bwahahahahaha - Mo' Money at work

[cmbarton]

I don’t care if NASA ever finds alien life on another planet, but I want to one day witness your discovery of the origins of the elusive “plume.”

[El Presidente]

Greg will seek further clarification from the science boffins. 

Tor the record there appear to be plenty of studies and articles of bacteria on cigarette tobacco which one would consider drier than a cigar environment. 

[Fuzz]

Time to update the FOH "Plume" definition with the new information:

 

PLUME/PLOOM/BLOOM

noun  plüm / blüm

1. What people think are the crystalized remnants of oils left on a cigar wrapper.... but really it's mostly mold or bacteria... and some dust.
2. Mold on a cigar
3. Bacteria on a cigar
4. Dust. Just common, everyday dust.
5. A term frequently used on cigar forums to polarise the membership into one of three camps; Believers, Sceptics & Undecided
   • "Hey! Check out the plume on my cigar!" "You idiot! That's just mold!" "I'm not sure about that.... does it wipe off easily?"

verb blooming

1. To create plume/bloom
   • "Feel and see that? That gritty sparkling sheen is proof this cigar is pluming."
   • "Your temp and RH is too high. Those cigars are blooming."
   • "This cigar must be blooming, pretty sure it gave me a chest infection"

adjective blooming

1. "You think that is bloom?, Well, you're a blooming idiot!"