accelerating the aging process

[Kyle Weiss]

I think when I was a teenager, some of the rotgut I was consuming would have been on par with industrial waste water, but those interests and days are, yes, long over. :lol:

Very educated speculation, then: I can dig it.

In regard to "oxygen killing anaerobic bacteria," I don't think it was you per-se that was being referred to (I know I certainly wasn't reading you alluding to this), but "common" assumption that anaerobic bacteria is suddenly nullified by oxygen. It isn't the first place, time or subject matter this assumption has come to light in discussions, live and via text, over the years.

From what makes sense to me, we're creating little non-sterile (thank goodness) worlds with our tobacco keeping (done properly), and either through science or unicorn magic, aging seems to work.

8)

 

[sam a]

I'm puzzled. Nowhere in either of my posts in this thread does it say that oxygen kills anaerobic bacteria. I don't know where youse guys got that notion from, but it didn't come from me.

i didn't mean to imply my post was in response to your posts... it was in response to the part of mike's question saying "theoretically, they could never get to anaerobic aging as they are always exposed to air".

 

[Vito]

...either through science or unicorn magic, aging seems to work.

8)

HAR!! :lol:

Well, we can only call it science to the extent that we understand it, and even then the "science" label only applies to our understanding, however accurate it might be. Most science is an approximation to reality anyway; a damned good approximation in many cases, but an approximation nonetheless.

Those of us whose curiosity manifests at the "pretty much an incurable disease" level are seldom satisfied that the current approximation will do in those areas that bug us the most, and off we go on a quest that is often far more revealing of how much we don't understand than of how much we actually grok. Science is an artifact of that process—a residue...the fraction that's left over after the flood of failures drains away.

Tobacco aging is a curiosity for me, but not one that bugs me enough to pursue it beyond the dilettante level...by which I mean it's a subject that (for me) barely raises its head above the "magic" level and catches a glimmer of actual knowledge. By way of contrast, Mr. Pease (for example) has prolly forgotten more than I ever knew about the subject.

...it was in response to the part of mike's question saying "theoretically, they could never get to anaerobic aging as they are always exposed to air".

Ah...I see. I didn't interpret Mike's statement in quite the same way. I took it to mean, "the kind of anaerobic aging that occurs inside a sealed tin of pipeweed", which (apparently) is a process that doesn't hit its optimum stride unless those little O₂ molecules aren't there in sufficient concentration to wreak their reactive havoc.

I think Brothah Kyle might be somewhat generous in his assessment that my blatherings constitute "educated speculation". The speculation part is right on; the educated part is perhaps on less solid ground. Nevertheless, as long as we understand that this is speculation, I'm inclined to speculate that the differentiation between aerobic and anaerobic processes probably is not as sharply delineated as we often imply with our simplistic discussions of aging...'garweedular, pipeweedic, or otherwise.

"Bob" (the universe) is seldom so neatly constructed. Complex systems are far more generic than the kinds of simple systems that we tend to get all cocky about with our "scientific" successes, and biological processes definitely fall under the complex category.

The upshot is this: I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the kind of aging that cigars undergo is the result of some mutant quasi-anaerobic bug...something that's perfectly comfortable in the niche between fresh air and a closed environment, in which it poots forth its own "magical" substances. To such mutant bugs, those compounds are poop. To humanoids bent on using the leaf they infest in burnt offerings, they're the stuff of legendary smokes.

The upshot of the upshot: The universe is a weird place. :mrgreen:

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

Hey Vito,

Thanks for joining the discussion. I can't say that I've read anything more fundamental in the history of your posts to this board than your last post.

You speak of what we do and do not know and the boundaries of what we can know through science. Most fundamental.

You say that your interest in researching tobacco fermentation has as yet not crossed into the area that you would consider active research. For those of us who are interested how would you suggest doing so? I've thought that the only way to penetrate this lore would be to research each word that doesn't make sense, "phenol" and "ester", the only way that I know to read scientific lore when I am not trained in science.

I invite you at any time that the spirit moves you to post something that is not general, that is truly scientific, about the subject of tobacco fermentation.

Mike

 

[Vito]

Mike:

Thanks for your feedback on the epistemological ranting in my last post. It's a subject I've studied in enough depth to justify the delusion that I have some qualifications in that area. I have no such delusions about my qualifications as a tobacco researcher.

...I've thought that the only way to penetrate this lore would be to research each word that doesn't make sense, "phenol" and "ester", the only way that I know to read scientific lore when I am not trained in science.

That's pretty much the way I approach it. I just notice things—for example the obvious similarities between the aromas in a well-aged chardonnay and those in a well-aged Ginnyweed. Because I know enough chemistry to recognize that other similarities (like what happens to sugary organics under the right anaerobic conditions) suggest what might be happening in a tin o'pipeweed, I blather on about it. I might not always stipulate that I'm speculating, but that's the truth of it.

Well, part of the truth, anyway. Another part is that anyone who understands that speculative hypotheses aren't the same as real science shouldn't take anything I say about aging as gospel. Hypotheses aren't worth jack squat for pony without hard corroborative evidence to back them up — evidence derived from observations that are independently repeatable by others. That would take way more documentation and diligence than I can afford to do out of sheer curiosity on the subject of tobacco aging.

The rest of the truth is that anyone who has the burn to find the answers using real science (and has the time and re$ource$ to make it happen) is, ipso facto, a real scientist, regardless of whether he has been formally "trained in science".

Science is a method—a philosophy, really—not a pedigree. Anyone who has studied the work of real scientists who had little or no formal scientific "training" (the Wright Brothers, Nikola Tesla, and Michael Faraday come to mind, among others) knows that there's a difference between being certified (like with an academic degree) and being genuinely qualified. The real qualification of any scientist is that he comes up with the truth, and he's right for the right reasons.

 

[Smoker99]

Pipe tobacco is "aged" at a considerably lower moisture content than cigars. Cigars are stored at a much higher moisture content, and require air circulation to prevent mould, whereas pipe tobacco will do well in sealed mason jars. Aging is just getting older, and deteriorating, which will make all tobacco milder. The Cubans started all this aging stuff many years ago because they were shipping green cigars in order to meet demand. Now everyone has seemed to bought into it.

 

[fumo bro]

Thank you Vito for your input. It is greatly appreciated!