30 Jul
2003
30 Jul
'03
3:35 p.m.
Perhaps the publisher wanted to make this more of an entry level book
and leave the door open for additional books on mead making. From a
procedural standpoint, I agree that there is more that could have been
written. Much already has been written in the MLD but it takes a lot of
work to compile information from the archives.
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Steve Fletty wrote:
I agree, but was expecting a bit more for some reason.
I guess I
expected to
be blown away and wasn't. I guess I was looking for more proceedural
precison, but as Chris points out the body of science isn't there yet.
By all means, if you're thinking about getting this book, do it. It's
much
much better than any other mead book I've seen or read.
I like the book. In my opinion, this is the first
good mead making
book
ever to have been published. I'm slowly learning that the "relax,
don't
worry" approach yields excellent results in mead making.
Now, how many brewing-specific books and research papers have been
published in the past hundred years? Thousands. The truth is that
there
is not much hard scientific information out there on mead making. We
should keep in mind there is a vast body of knowledge in biochemistry
behind the summarized information that is available to us homebrewers.
That wealth of knowledge simply doesn't exist in mead making. Much can
be borrowed from current fermentation science but honey is as distinct
from barley as barley is from grapes. I bring this up because Ken and
I
were discussing the very same issue at the national conference.
Brewing and oenology have substantially evolved over the past couple
centuries. Mead making has not. We are learning a lost art. Ken's book
is an excellent start but it will be another couple decades before the
industry starts to mature and home mead makers will then have access
to
more detailed information. I look forward to it.