1872 - Observations on Mr. Pasteur's latest announcement: 'Wine yeast originates from the skin of grapes'

1872 was the year when Béchamp, who had been watching from the sidelines, finally snapped at Pasteur, who was accelerating his plagiarism, and in this year, he and his partner Estor posted a series of protests in the Comptes Rendus. This article is a translation of one of them. While the translation of the original French text relies entirely on DeepL, it has been revised for readability. I have reprinted the original text at the end, so please check it if you can read French.

The common talk about Béchamp is distorted, and it is conveyed as if he completely denied the influence of airborne pathogens. In this regard, Kikuo Chishima (famous for the Chishima Theory), who only partially researched Béchamp, also misread him (*Chishima sometimes cherry-picks). However, he did not deny airborne transmission. It was just that Pasteur was too far beyond the pale, and in this respect, perhaps because the modern era, 100 years later, has somewhat caught up with Béchamp, modern infectious disease theory does not deviate that much from Béchamp's claims. However, due to the negative influence of having Pasteur in textbooks, it is certain that a distortion remains because one cannot forever deny the point of 'seeking the source of the cause of organic decay in the air'.

In this protest, he mentions the view of germs floating in the air and leaves behind important statements, so I have translated them. Simply put,

・Particles called 'Germs' since ancient times float in the air, but their true nature is |microzymas (micro-ferments) (*suspected nucleic acid substances such as DNA/RNA) as remnants of living tissue.
・He acknowledges the fact that these airborne microzymas enter the lungs through respiration, but they do not participate in physiological phenomena within the living body and can be ignored.

>Do not participate in physiological phenomena within the living body and can be ignored

However, this is only the case when they enter the body as 'microzymas'; for example, he does not deny that the transmission of disease occurs when they enter as mold spores, which is their pathological evolutionary form. An important difference between the two is that the fraudster Pasteur, who is in textbooks, was a panspermist, that is, a theorist of the cosmic origin of all microorganisms.

In contrast, Béchamp seeks the source of microorganisms in living things, whether plants or animals. It is certain that the 'first individual' that generated the pathogen was exposed to an abnormal environment, but he does not deny that once a pathogen is generated from there, it exerts a pathological effect on other individuals. In other words, the common talk confuses his claims of 'generation' and 'transmission'. Nevertheless, the mere existence of the pathogen does not mean that transmission occurs 100%, and what he emphasized was the danger of 'limiting the etiology to a single factor'. Naturally, as in Koch's third postulate, the 'susceptibility' of the individual is also required.

This article does not discuss biological diseases, but remains on the subject of grape fermentation phenomena. I would like to introduce his views, which can be said to be the father of modern French wine.

Béchamp, A. Observations relatives à quelques Communications faites récemment par M. Pasteur, et notamment à ce sujet : « La levûre qui fait le vin vient de l’extérieur des grains de raisin. C. R. Acad. Sci. 1872, 75, 1284–1292.
https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11030474?page=1326

Japanese translation

According to the common theory ten years ago, air was indispensable for the phenomenon of wine fermentation.

Some, like Gay-Lussac and Liebig, thought that oxygen in the air induced changes in the |albuminoid substances (proteins) of the mash, after which ferments were born, while others thought that air transported the germs essential for the growth of ferments to the mash.

In 1862, while pursuing research on mold and its fermentative functions, I decided to expose mash to air under three conditions: after decolorization with bone char[*] in the same period and in the same laboratory, and with or without passing through a filter. Fermentation began in all three mixtures, but it occurred in the reverse order of the above. Furthermore, the mold and ferments that propagated did not match in any of the three conditions.

The chemical composition of the culture medium is the same, but why do the actions not match under the three conditions?

To solve this problem, I conducted an experiment published in 1864. While there were gas bubbles in boiling sugar water, I introduced a healthy grape vine with its stem intact and cooled it with a carbon dioxide stream. Fermentation occurred and was completed in this medium. In the postscript, I showed that the small globules of ferments (yeast cells?) that propagated in the medium were identical to those observed directly on the grapes, with the exception of some slight differences. This problem is covered in its entirety in Comptes Rendus (1864, Vol. 59, p626) [*].

[*]Béchamp, A. Sur l’origine Des Ferments Du Vin. C. R. Acad. Sci. 1864, No. 59, 626–629.

From this research, I reached the conclusion that neither oxygen nor germs in the air are related to the birth of ferments, and that grapes possess everything they need for fermentation in advance. I will stop here in this article. I will return to this problem soon. I just wanted to show that the 1864 observation was correct and that I had already established a view regarding the role played by airborne germs at that time [1]. Mr. Pasteur concealed known content and merely reconfirmed my research. In 1872, he arrived at the conclusion I reached eight years ago:

But I have gone further. As early as 1864, I showed that the stems and leaves of the vine contain ferments of sugar and must, and that these are of a kind that can sometimes have a detrimental effect on the grape harvest.

[1] To add a supplement, my method of 15 years, which involves introducing grapes into must that has undergone filtration, heating, and creosote treatment, has also yielded successful results in the same experiment. Regarding this point, I would like to quote the final section from the paper I had the honor of submitting to the Academy on February 26th of this year, titled "On the essential nature of organized corpuscles in the atmosphere and their role in fermentation phenomena" [※]. Due to space constraints, this final part could not be included in the Comptes Rendus (Weekly Reports). I ask the Academy for its indulgence as this reprinting has become necessary. In volume 74, page 633 of the Comptes Rendus, the following content follows the opening sentence: "Below are two cases that verify these."

[※] Béchamp, A. On the Essential Nature of Organized Corpuscles in the Atmosphere and Their Role in Fermentation Phenomena. C. R. Acad. Sci. 1872, 74, 629–633.

The role of molecular granules in the air, so-called aerial germs, is significant, and there is no doubt about that. The experiment I have just reported seems to prove that these so-called "germs" are primarily microzymas and that their influence can be minimized in any way. Therefore, germs should not be overestimated, and it becomes somewhat superstitious to try to explain all fermentation phenomena with germs. Therefore, it is accepted that germs can penetrate even solid walls, that powerful chemical changes occur upon instantaneous contact with a small amount of air, and that a wide variety of organisms can appear in any situation where fermentation occurs. Let us verify the results if we accept this hypothesis. M. Dumas showed that a person breathing 16 times per minute inhales approximately 8 m³ of air into their lungs in 24 hours. Generally, aerial germs (microzymas) easily enter anywhere and are retained by extraction, so I would like to ask frankly: Why is it not accepted that they are retained and fail to penetrate the entire surface of the respiratory organs, as well as the vast moist layer or blood-mixed layer that the lungs would be responsible for expanding? It must undoubtedly be denied, because all chemical actions in the living body that are similar to fermentation phenomena would be attributed to aerial germs! On the other hand, I admit the fact that aerial germs, which are microzymas, penetrate those layers. But I want to show that they have no involvement in the chemical phenomena observed there. In any case, it turned out that their influence is nil. Through such preliminary experiments, M. Estor and I began to study the microzymas of organisms. In this study, it was necessary to ignore the action of aerial germs. Since 1855, I have sought the source of molds and organized ferments in the air. If the Academy permits, M. Estor and I intend to report experimental results that explain the experiments of M. Fremy and M. Trécul, which contradict M. Pasteur's views, without applying the theory of heterogenesis.

Original text

About ten years ago, it was admitted that the intervention of air was necessary for alcoholic fermentation to begin.
Some believed, with Gay-Lussac and M. Liebig, that it was because it determined, by its oxygen, a modification of the albuminoid matter of the must from which the ferment was born; others, because it brought into the must the germs necessary for the development of this ferment.

In the course of 1862, while I was pursuing my research on molds and their function as a ferment, I came to expose to the contact of air, at the same time and in the same place, grape must decolorized by animal black, simply filtered and unfiltered. The three preparations entered into fermentation, but in an order inverse to the enumeration which precedes. Moreover, the molds or ferments developed were not found to be identically the same in the three experiments.

The chemical medium being the same, why did it not act in the same way in the three musts?

To resolve the question, I instituted the experiments that I published in 1864. Whole, healthy grapes, provided with their peduncles, were introduced, at the vineyard itself, into boiled sugar water, cooled in a current of carbonic acid, and while the gas was still bubbling there. Fermentation was established and completed in this medium thus withdrawn for its entire duration from the action of air. Finally, I showed that the globules of ferment, developed in the fermented medium, were the same, except for nuances, as those that I discovered directly in the grapes. One will find the question completely treated in the Comptes rendus (1864, t. LIX, P. 626).

I concluded from these researches that the air, by its oxygen or by its germs, is for nothing in the birth of the ferment, and that the grape brings with it everything necessary for the fermentation to be accomplished in all its fullness. I do not want to say more today; I will return shortly to this subject; I only wanted to show that I had observed well in 1864, and that, from that time, I knew what to hold on to regarding the part that must be given to the germs of the air (1). M. Pasteur discovered what was known; he simply confirmed my work; in 1872, he arrives at the conclusion at which I had arrived eight years before, namely:
the ferment that makes the must ferment is a mold that comes from the outside of the grape grain. I pray the Academy to allow me to take note of this confirmation.

I went further. As early as 1864, I showed that the stalks of the cluster and the leaves of the vine are carriers of ferments, capable of making sugar and must ferment, and, moreover, that the ferments, which are born from the leaves and stalks, are sometimes of a nature to harm the harvest.

(1) I hasten to add that the same experiments succeed when the grapes are introduced into the filtered, heated, and creosoted must, according to the method that I have used for more than fifteen years. In this regard, I beg the Academy to allow me to remind it of the end of a Note that I had the honor of presenting to it on February 26 of this year on the essential nature of organized corpuscles of the atmosphere and on the part that belongs to them in the phenomena of fermentation, end which could not find a place in the Report of the session, because of its length. The reproduction of this end has become necessary. I pray the Academy to allow me to represent it to it. It followed these words on page 633 of volume LXXIV of the Comptes rendus: "Here are two others that control them:

The role of molecular granulations, of germs, as they are called, of the atmosphere, is considerable, that is not doubtful. The experiments that I have just reported seem to me to prove that these so-called germs are above all microzymas whose influence can be made as small as one wants. One must not therefore grant them an exaggerated importance, which becomes, in a way, superstitious when one wants to make them explain everything in the matter of fermentations. Thus one admits that they penetrate even through compact walls, and that the instantaneous contact of a small volume of air can be the cause, in all cases where an action of fermentation manifests itself, of powerful chemical transformations and of the possible appearance of a crowd of diverse organisms. Let us admit, for a moment, the hypothesis and let us see its consequences. M. Dumas has demonstrated that, in Paris, a man who makes sixteen inspirations per minute makes nearly 8 cubic meters of air penetrate into his lungs per twenty-four hours. Since one admits that the germs or microzymas of the air penetrate so easily everywhere and that they are so easily retained by infusions, I ask expressly why one does not admit that they are retained equally by the entire surface of the respiratory tracts and of this vast humid or sanguine sheet, that the lung supposed spread out in surface represents, and do not penetrate there. Without doubt one is forced to deny it, because without that, by pushing the consequences a little, all the chemical acts of the organism, so similar to the acts of fermentation, could be attributed to the germs of the atmosphere! I admit, on the contrary, that they penetrate there as microzymas, and I will demonstrate, I hope, that they are for almost nothing in the chemical manifestations that we observe there. Be that as it may, one has just seen that one can reduce their influence to nothing. It is these preliminary experiments that have allowed us, M. Estor and me, to undertake the study of the microzymas of the organism, a study for which we needed to neglect the influence of atmospheric germs. I have sought, since 1855, in the atmosphere, the cause of the development of molds and of all figured ferments: it is also elsewhere. If the Academy permits, M. Estor and I will give it an account of experiments that explain those that M. Fremy and M. Trécul oppose to M. Pasteur, and that without making the doctrine of heterogenesis intervene.