All advice I've seen given here and on other brew sites relies heavily on the use of a hydrometer, which I assume is a somewhat recent invention. However, people have been brewing and drinking for thousands of years - what did they do in the past? Does anybody here brew without the use of measure-reading instruments?
edit: I'm not talking about just beer, I'm wondering about any alcohol ferment (beer, wine, cider, etc).
Here's a different approach to answering your question. Another completely valid, and backwards way of asking your question would be to ask: "How did people know that a hydrometer was an indicator of the beer being done?" The hydrometer really doesn't tell you that your beer is "done". What it tells you is that the sugars have been converted by yeast into alcohol and CO2 (among other by-products). I certainly wouldn't consider a Russian Imperial Stout or Barley Wine done the moment the krausen dissipates back into the beer and the hydrometer hits its FG. Each beer is different, just how every brewer is different. Their interpretations of "done" are all subjective, influenced by others imparting advice and education on them and previous attempts.
There is no right or wrong way to brew a beer (probably the most over-stated piece of advice, second only to Papazian's "Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew", bear with me here). By that logic, there is no wrong way to call a beer done. Each brewer has their own idea of when their beer is ready to serve, they don't need a hydrometer each time to tell themselves that. Heck, I didn't bother to take final gravity readings on two of the five beers in my keezer. They tasted great, I was excited to get them carbed up, and to this day, I don't know what the exact ABV of them are, but I'm confident they're done. My measure of "done" is that it tastes how I wanted it to taste, if not better. I bet brewers back hundreds of years ago used the same methods to determine whether or not their beer was done.
Probably not the most factual answer you would hope for, but hopefully it allows you to take a broader approach to understanding how it worked back in the day.
As well as hydrometers, carbonating and hopping beer is also a fairly recent trend in brewing, so a long time ago, the wort was brewed (by steeping grain and boiling, no hops), put into a barrel and then stirred with a big stock of wood that provided the yeast.
The beer didn't have anything like the quality we expect today, so it was simply deemed ready after the krausen had fallen or after a suitable period of time had passed, or simply when the brewer felt it was fit for serving (or not!)
The hydrometer is known to have been invented by the late 4th century or early 5th century, and to have been used for brewing no later than 1770. Source: wikipedia.
In most cases, we determine whether a beer is "done" by taste, not measurements. We use a hydrometer mostly to determine when it is OK to package a beer, and for our amusement to determine its apparent ABV (the exception is stuck fermentations). A few hundred years ago, beers were not packaged in as air-tight containers as our crown-capped bottles or kegs -- they were packaged in casks as real ale, or in bottles with cork closures. If a bottle refermented, the cork pushing out was likely the worst consequence.
My Guess is that back in the days of old, they depended more on aging than on whether or not it was fermented. their experience taught them that their brew was best enjoyed during a min/max window of "freshness". In my own experience, I brewed 3 or 4 batches (blondes and cream ales) that came out very tasty indeed before I ever bought a hydro. I watched the airlock. After about 4 or 5 days it stopped bubbling and I let it "mature" another week or so. I learned from accidental experience that I preferred when my primary went for 3 weeks instead of the minimum 2 weeks recommeded in the recipe. I also learned that my cream ale was much better after 4 weeks of conditioning in the bottles than it was after only 2.
of course this could all be hog wash as I have no historical research to base any of this on.
Cheers!
Mike
