Fungi That Attack Cellared Tobacco - Research

[brightleaf]

Given the recent threads discussing plume and mold, I thought I would do a bit of research.
I didn't find much written on the subject with the exception of one article related to tobacco-infesting fungi, titled The Water Content/Water Activity Relationship of Cured Tobacco and Water Relations of Associated Spoilage Fungi by E. S. Mutasa, K. J. Seal & N. Magan, published in the journal International Biodeterioration 26 (1990) 381-396. All of the following information is my paraphrasing from this one source.
The article looked at the effects of different moisture contents on different types of tobaccos, stored for various lengths of time, and then isolated and identified the different species of fungi that caused spoilage in them.
An important consideration taken by these researchers was their establishing a difference between Moisture Content and Available Water (AW). It was found that Virginia and Oriental tobaccos do not provide the fungal spores as much Available Water at any given Moisture Content as other types of tobaccos. There is a suspected correlation with this fact, and the fact that Virginias and Orientals have a much higher sugar content than other tobaccos, such as Burley for instance.
While Virginias do not have as much AW as Burley at any given moisture content, at the same AW rating Virginia tobaccos are much more conducive to fungal growth than Burley is.
The article mentioned that the moisture content range of between 11% and 15% is the range generally considered safe from fungal attack by the tobacco industry.
As an example of AW and moisture content, the article mentions an AW of 0.75, correlating it to a moisture content of 26.8% in Virginia and 19.4% in Burley. At this AW the only fungal species that is found to grow is Aspergillus glaucus, although it is at the lower level of it's germination AW range. With an increase in AW more species germinate, and those that do germinate tend to grow faster as the AW increases. Below AW 0.85 only A. glaucus was found in every tobacco tested. At 0.80 AW other Aspergillus species and Penicillum species started to germinate, with different species in different types of tobacco.
The AW of 0.70 seems to be the safest maximum available water if one wants to keep their tobacco fungus free for the long term. From my interpretation of figure 1 in the article, this confirms the 15% moisture content which was mentioned as considered generally safe by the tobacco industry, although the authors seem to think 15% may still be risky.
This study didn't test the effects of different temperatures, oxygen concentrations, casings, humectants, or anti-fungals which may be added or variable with the tobaccos that we cellar.
A little add-on by me: Fungal spores are always going to be present in our tobacco, along with almost every food we eat. It is when they grow to a large colony, eating our food and tobacco that we say it is spoiled. A common anti-fungal used in tobacco is calcium propionate (Mycoban), this anti-fungal is also used in many of our daily breads.

 

[woodsroad]

I have great success applying a .5% by weight solution of Calcium Propionate to tobacco with a proven predilection for fungus growth.
The tobacco was Acadian Bright from D&R, a Canadian Virginia leaf that was run through the Perique process. It came shipped in 6oz. plastic tubs, at a fairly high moisture content. About 90 tubs were purchased, all cut from the same batch of tobacco, at the same time. As long as the tubs remained sealed, there was little to no fungus growth. Once the tubs were opened, a delicate patina of beige growth began to appear. This growth was flavorless and odorless. After about two weeks, a secondary growth took over. This growth was hairy, all encompassing and smelled like a wet basement.
A .5% by weight solution of Calcium Propionate was carefully applied to multiple tubs of the tobacco that had not yet shown substantial signs of either the primary or secondary mold growth. To date, after three months, none of the treated tobacco is showing signs of mold. The Calcium Propionate does not appear to change the burning, flavor or aroma characteristics of the tobacco.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Dan- Interesting! On the open tubs was the ambient humidity fairly high?

Given the recent threads discussing plume and mold, I thought I would do a bit of research.

Bloom, Mr. Leaf. But you're an educated man, so I bet you're writing that to be perverse or to stick it up my pipe.

 

[woodsroad]

Ploom.
Mark shipped this tobacco quite wet. I think that it was at the moisture content at which this stuff tastes it's best. I tried drying it to the point where it was just barely pliable and I felt that it had lost a good bit of it's exceptional flavor.
I have a few sealed, untreated tubs stashed in the cellar fridge, and I'm going to see how much a lab will charge to identify the different growths.

 

[brightleaf]

Please explain why Bloom is the official word and Plume is officially wrong. As far as I know words are not pre existent, but are created as they are needed. Some words even take on new definitions in time. If Plume is used and commonly understood in our community as describing a phenomenon (whether we fully understand it or not,) then it is a correct usage of the word. Using a dictionary is useful for understanding other people, but not if you do not understand it's scope.

 

[alan73]

Please don't get into plume, bloom, or doom , seems we hashed that out to death very recently. :nana:

 

[davet]

I grew up next door to a family named Plume...... :roll:

 

[woodsroad]

I'm not one tell others how to use the language, but it is distressing to me how social media has promulgated the abuse of words. "Plume" is not the correct word to describe the unknown and undefined whitish substances what one might find on pipe tobacco. It can only be construed as being the correct word out of common misuse. Yes, some people on some obscure pipe tobacco social media platforms might know what you are referring to when you say "plume", but that word already has established definitions, and white crap on pipe tobacco ain't one of them.

 

[brightleaf]

Here is a copy and paste of the post by Leopolis Semper Fidelis on http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/topic/131757-foh-mould-study/?page=8
According to Marvin R. Shanken's Cigar Aficionado's Pocket Guide (1997 edition):
"BLOOM - A naturally occurring phenomenon in the cigar aging process, also called plume, caused by the oils which are exuded during later fermentations. It appears as a fine, white powder and can be brushed off. Not to be confused with cigar mold, which is bluish in color and stains the wrapper.
MOLD - A potentially damaging fungus that can form on cigars stored at too high a temperature.
OIL - Oil is the mark of a well-humidified cigar. Even well aged cigars secrete oil at 70-72% humidity, the level at which they should be stored.
[I can't help including this one as well: "PERIOD OF SICKNESS" - A time when cigars should not be smoked. Fresh cigars are fine, as are aged ones; but avoid cigars between three months and a year old. (No reputable store would sell you a cigar of this age.)".]
+ + + + + + +
Now we turn to Richard B. Perelman's Perelman's Pocket Cyclopedia of Havana Cigars (Second Edition, 1998):
"Aging of [cigars with strong flavors] will result in a mellowing in the strength of the cigars as the fermentation process continues. During this period, the internal oils of the leaves will migrate towards the exterior and will leave the wrappers oily and aromatic...Cigars which show white mold, also known as "plume" should simply be wiped clean with a barely-damp sponge or a soft cloth. If the mold has turned green, the cigars are ruined."
+ + + + + + +
Note how Shanken and Perelman are at odds: Marvin says plume is caused by migrating tobacco oils and is not mold. However, Rich states that plume is white mold.
By the way, has it been established scientifically that tobacco oils move themselves to the surface of the cigar, or is this one of those urban myths associated with cigars? Do cigars actually "ferment" as they age? I could pose some more questions, and make a few comments, on the above extracts, but will leave it at that.
Where is this ancient definition of Bloom being the highly coveted pixie dust that forms on the tobacco of the fortunate? It seems that according to modern dictionaries of our niche community, Bloom and Plume are interchangeable. Although no one really knows what this white stuff really is. Plume seems to be in dictionaries at least 20 years old describing this phenomenon.

 

[nevadablue]

Sigh...
But, now I know why I like dry tobacco.

 

[woodsroad]

So "Bloom" and "Plume" are used interchangeably to describe a condition that is ill-defined and of unknown origin and cause. Got it.
My WAG is that there is both bacterial and fungal growth. Depending what chemicals the manufacturers use (or don't use) to suppress growth, either could be active. Purely a guess.
As to whether oils migrate, i have no idea. I don't think that anyone outside of a few technical types in the cigar industry know, either.
There is lots of bad information, based on absolutely nothing at all, that gets passed off and passed around as fact.
EDIT: Just looked at the FOH thread. Thank you. Very interesting! All fungi of varying varieties.

 

[balkisobrains]

woodsroad
I have great success applying a .5% by weight solution of Calcium Propionate to tobacco with a proven predilection for fungus growth.
The tobacco was Acadian Bright from D&R, a Canadian Virginia leaf that was run through the Perique process. It came shipped in 6oz. plastic tubs, at a fairly high moisture content. About 90 tubs were purchased, all cut from the same batch of tobacco, at the same time. As long as the tubs remained sealed, there was little to no fungus growth. Once the tubs were opened, a delicate patina of beige growth began to appear. This growth was flavorless and odorless. After about two weeks, a secondary growth took over. This growth was hairy, all encompassing and smelled like a wet basement.
A .5% by weight solution of Calcium Propionate was carefully applied to multiple tubs of the tobacco that had not yet shown substantial signs of either the primary or secondary mold growth. To date, after three months, none of the treated tobacco is showing signs of mold. The Calcium Propionate does not appear to change the burning, flavor or aroma characteristics of the tobacco.

Is this the same batch that is in the RO Series Acadian blends? Just wondering if this is going to happen to a tin of Acadian Gold that I recently opened. :puffpipe:

 

[woodsroad]

Yes, I believe that it is the same stuff. But the AcadianGold is shipped much drier. Dry enough that nothing is going to bloom in it.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"If Plume is used and commonly understood in our community...."
The word 'bowels' has often been used on this and other forums for 'bowls', same with 'pallett' (and many variants) for palate. Just because it is used often it doesn't make it right.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[woodsroad]

It occurs to me that when I write about tobacco fungus, I do so under an assumed name.

It is my Nom De Plume.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I have already demonstrated that the two words share an identical meaning.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"I have already demonstrated that the two words share an identical meaning."
With all due respect Michael, you gave your opinion. If I recall from an earlier post on another matter you stated words to the effect of "I don't claim to know anything, I only have opinions".
Yes, language is fluid and dynamic but simply stating something as fact because you have heard it so does not make it fact.
But at the end of the day folks will use whatever words they please to describe things, functions, actions etc and the more they do so the more the English-language becomes diluted, defiled and bastardised.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[deathmetal]

The word 'bowels' has often been used on this and other forums for 'bowls', same with 'pallett' (and many variants) for palate. Just because it is used often it doesn't make it right.

Load a bowel!

But at the end of the day folks will use whatever words they please to describe things, functions, actions etc and the more they do so the more the English-language becomes diluted, defiled and bastardised.

I think it is wise to resist entropy in all forms. Language is culture is values is choices is wisdom.

 

[nevadablue]

Load it with Ploom or blume, your choice. YMMV

 

[deathmetal]

5. a glow or flush on the cheek indicative of youth and health:
6. the glossy, healthy appearance of the coat of an animal.
7. a moist, lustrous appearance indicating freshness in fish.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bloom

Mmm... fish tobacco.

4. any plumose part or formation.
5. a feather, a tuft of feathers, or some substitute, worn as an ornament, as on a hat, helmet, etc.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plume?s=t

A plume is a shape, a bloom is a condition.