原帖由 饿死的猫 于 2016-5-27 02:41 发表
无氧，少氧，氧气充沛，这三个词语的含义是不同的。
我认同烟草陈化喜压，并不是考量到氧气含量的问题，而是“集群效应”，同时陈化的草量越大，陈化效果越明显，效率越高，这个词我不晓得用得妥不妥。
我做过一年 ...
首先你在逻辑上有错误，无氧，少氧，氧气充沛是三种环境，三种环境分别意味着，纯无氧发酵（无氧呼吸），少氧时的有氧发酵和无氧发酵相互并存，氧气充沛环境下的过度氧化。而你一开始和朋友的结论就是无氧发酵对烟草没有好处，却又再强调你提出的陈化环境是密封少氧的和压制的（烟草喜压），你的结论带有明显的错误而你的存储环境却在自我修正？
广义的无氧发酵是指在缺乏分子氧或者分子氧供给不足环境下，产生的微生物和有机物的化学反应。无氧氧化的过程，也被称为糖酵解。
“烟叶密封5天后，氧气下降到1.6%(己超过保险系数3%的界限)；二氧化碳上升至下18.8%，比大气含量0.03~0.04%大626倍之多。在这样的条件下，尽管温度、湿度都很合适，但氧气含量低，二氧化碳浓度高，使霉菌受到抑制，害虫被窒息，从而达到安全储存的效果。” ----烟草化学
这是烟草密封的实际情况，氧气的缺乏必然就会有无氧呼吸存在，除非厌氧微生物全部死绝了。曾经英国烟草企业常年不在烟草罐上打日期，主要是因为他们认为销售出来的成品烟草是立即享用的，完全忽视了无氧发酵所带来的不同。做为最有名的有氧发酵拥护者，查尔斯.拉特雷，他在一系列烟斗烟草研究中有一个这样的观点，一罐烟草下一斗永远比上一斗好，直到最后一斗。事实上这种情况绝对不适用于含有特殊芳香烟草的调配。
The whole jar vs. tin thing is another wild card. The biggest problem with jars is that people can’t leave them alone. It’s tempting, after a few months, to open them to see how things are going, but as soon as that lid is off, the environment within the jar changes dramatically, primarily because of the air exchange that takes place. The evolution of the tobacco will be forever changed by this snooping. It’s not a bad thing, just different. Aging will continue, of course, but on a different path. As for the packing density, there will be some difference in the result of a tightly-packed jar versus one that is looser, but there’s really a lot of air in there, even if you cram it in, so the differences aren’t as dramatic as you might expect.
----Glp
你一直在选择性的无视Glp的观点，我只好理解为英国式的固执或者顽固，事实上直接在烟草罐上标记生产时间，恰好就是美国人开始做的，英国人直到今天都不愿意直接告诉消费者他们什么时候生产的这些玩意。从很久以前开始美国烟斗草基本都会有时间，甚至各种小店都会有，而以SG公司为代表的英国草完全靠包装盒经验断代，而你永远不会知道这罐烟草到底几年了。随着微生物学的发展，美国人70年代甚至更早就开始研究烟斗草的陈化原理，他们认为封装烟草并不意味着死亡，烟草最重要的阶段就是进入罐头之后。Glp在其他文章中准确的说，他认为他的调配起码应该在罐子里呆2,3年再打开享用，这才会进入最佳状态。这段发表在pipesmagezine的文字就说了，开罐放三年和不开罐放三年，因为发酵环境的不同，意味着陈化出来是两种不同的烟草，有着巨大的差异。
The comment you made about aging jars suffering the curiosity of its keeper, who opens it, brings thoughts that I’ve had to the surface.
Used to be there was the preference for anaerobic aging. The thought was that all the oxygen in whatever container chosen would be used up by aerobic aging or fermentation, and then the meat of aging would kick in, anaerobic aging. Somewhere along the line this distinction was dropped and those in the know said that aging was aging, in whatever form, and the aging container in question provided variation only, given its shape and size accommodating a certain amount of air. All aging was good but would be different, especially given a sealed container as opposed to one that had been opened periodically.
I question this, but not having the chemistry to buoy my thoughts, can only say what makes sense to me. My thoughts are that uninterrupted aging is superior. At some point aerobic aging ends and anaerobic begins, and the chemical processes that begin are, to my mind, best left undisturbed for whatever period of time that the smoker prefers. Why foster aging and yank it in and out of its normal course through the introduction of air? The jar is doing its work and aging is progressing. Why force anaerobic to become aerobic, and vice versa? If you want something to age, why make it upshift aerobically and then downshift anaerobically? To my mind this is disruption of the very thing the smoker is trying to accomplish.
A pipe friend who doesn’t follow my practice said, why should I deny myself a certain tobacco that is in an aging jar? My answer is above. I have no trouble leaving my aging tobacco in jars without opening them for whatever period of time that I’ve chosen. Sure, I’ve cracked a jar or two early, but that is unusual. If I want to age a particular tobacco for two, five or ten years, I leave it alone and don’t open the jar. Heaven knows that I have many tobaccos available that are not aging. And aging in this manner, I’ve had nothing but great results from VA or VA-based tobaccos, Cumberland, Haddos and Redwood most notably.
Not saying that this is best practice, and I invite chemists to tell me how I’m wrong. But the same smoker above, a man of science, said that no living chemist could describe the algorithms of aging. In any event, aging has always fascinated me as it is describes the controlled deterioration of a plant substance removed from the conditions in which it grew as opposed to human physiology, for example, that describes the maintenance of life in the body while alive.
Which reminds me-I need to inspect the lids on my jars to make sure that my aging hasn’t been inadvertently disturbed by rogue lids and inflowing air.
----4noggins mike
4noggins的Mike 也是倾向于不打开罐子，直到你要享用的时候。而事实证明，斗村许多朋友的状态良好的陈年烟草开罐之后因为氧气的进入会发生一个奇怪的不可控的变化，风味和体验跌宕起伏，但是不可否认的是达到一定时间后会迅速衰减。实际上我们完全无法真正享用一罐因为碰撞或者腐蚀而破坏密封性的加入芳香烟草（含有拉塔基亚和芳香东方烟草）的调配，因为它已经不再是它。或者你可以说几十岁的漏气的不密封的FVF或者ST，James都还不错，但是同样陈年的漏气的蓝狗或者飞机就完全不是那么回事了。虽然芳香烟草的气味流失与有氧或者无氧没有关系，但是根据基本的烟草化学，只要是没有空气交换的密封罐子中，氧气的含量会极具下降形成缺氧环境，那么必然就是厌氧微生物开始活跃，需氧微生物代谢开始减缓。
the biological and chemical processes that go on defy real analysis. There are too many variables. What native yeasts and bacteria survived the curing and initial aging process of the base leaf, or were in the air when the leaf was cut, blended, tinned? What’s the moisture level? And on and on.
----Glp
No living chemist could describe the algorithms of aging.但是我们可以把大多数变量忽略掉来分析逻辑上的准确性，事实上一般人无法模拟出没有无氧呼吸的陈化环境，对比少氧和充分氧气的环境来说，少氧环境陈化更好，说明一定的无氧呼吸作用对于烟草滋味的改善有着显著效果。所以我认为您搬出廖来印证无氧发酵对烟草没有改善的观点毫无用处，且不说对于廖其他诸多观点的不认同，无氧发酵无用论显然是一种谬误和误导。
[ 本帖最后由 Dalcon 于 2016-5-27 08:51 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2016-5-27 02:49:28
发表于 2016-5-27 08:33:28
