Reassuring data. I've been progressively changing my recipes - which are mostly derived from the traditional brewing text books - to the shorter boil time (30 mins) from the 60 or 90 minute boils, mainly following advice from David Heath's brewing channel. I've certainly not detected any differences or off flavours, and adjusting the hops to achieve equivalent IBU readings has been straightforward. Yes, perhaps overall hop use goes up but energy costs are reduced, particularly going from 90 to 30 min boil and it certainly shortens the brew day!
For the last four years I have been using boiling times from 30 to 50 minutes, depending on the requirements of the style I am brewing. This gives me extra time. On the other hand, I think that in styles such as a doppelbock, a double decoction gives that style a plus. Cheers!
The thing is: the electricity for the additional 30 minutes of cooking costs basically the same as the additional bittering hop necessary. This could however be combatted by using a higher alpha acid hop. That's a thing I'm really curious about (and might also be a nice exBEERiment): is 20 grams of Styrian Goldings 2.8% noticeably different from 4 grams (or IBU equivalent) Magnum 14%, both with a 60 minute boil? 30 minute might be interesting as well, there you might be more able to notice a difference. If it's not it will be a considerable cost saving replacing low AA hops with high AA hops when used as bittering hop.
I wish i could do these experiments on my own and discover lots of things myself. I just don't have the space or equipment to do it. I would totally make a youtube channel out of it.
Interesting results. However, it would be equally interesting to do a test with only traditional Czech floor malts. I would even go as far as betting on the result :)
we had a local brewery do a 15 minute boil, and it was pretty decent. I'm a 30 minute boiler too, I don't have the patience when doing multiple brews in a day.
Good to know as I head towards my second attempt at BIAB. First run produced an oxidised mess and trying to ensure I can control things to prevent another crass beer 👍
I always do 60 just cuz it works for my fermentor volumes. If I want more color or flavor (pils) I take bout 1.5 gallons of wort 25 minutes into the mash and pressure boil it until its time for mashout. Works like a champ.
I like 30 minutes boil but ironically, when I have a busy day, I prefer to have longer boils because I can do something else meanwhile. With 30 minutes, I am cleaning, adding my hops and fining and sanitising in parallel. It is a bit stressful. NB: i don’t have an all in one brew system so I have quite some dishes to clean
I did switch to a 30 minute boil for a while, but my results weren't great. I suspect that this has little to do with the boil rate itself and more that I was looking for corners to cut in general. I returned to a 60 minute boil and used that as part of a larger set of changes to be more rigorous about my brewing. I've been using this year to evaluate processes individually and may try 30 minute boils as part of that.
I have to wonder if we just have much higher quality malt, more tuned specialty malts, and better extraction efficiency than 150yr ago, which makes longer boils unnecessary. Basically, the work is now done in the malt house, not the the boil.
60 minutes boil here, but always looking for time-saving methods. I'm ussually boiling in 2 pots at the same time so I get 2 or even more styles from 1 brewing day (using 5 fermenters with different yeasts and dry hops). I mash red malts separately and then I add that mini-colorfull wort to the 2nd pot to get other styles from the same day. Next time I'm gonna boil 1 pot just 30 mins to see if I can find any difference. The posibility of saving gas and also time is a win-win for me. About the IBU, I always do FWH, I don't think it will decrease the bitterness that much. Maybe I will increase some grams.
I've made my 9% chocolate stout twice but the second time I boiled for 2 hours. To me it had a beautifully smooth mouthfeel, more so than the 1 hour boil. 🤷♂️
The only time I've bothered with a longer boil was with a massive barleywine. 3 hour boil on that one, not necessarily for colour or flavour (though colour was certainly affected), but for being able to extract as much sugar as possible, then boiling it down to a volume I can ferment. Ended up with 2.5 gallons of a delicious 12% barleywine.
With modern malting practices - yes, even "traditional floor malting" and what not - embrace the 30 min boil! DMS is generally not a problem as moder malts are so highly modified. As for Maillard reactions, boiling wort does not reach temperatures where these occure at a significant rate, i.e. Maillard influences in malt and wort will likely be most pronounced during kilning. This is not to say that longer boil times may not influence the organoleptic qualities of beer, just that all the reasons why and folk wisdom easily come at odds under scrutiny. As always, make your beer the way you want to do it, but do know that a lot of the reasons for various "traditional" timings regarding mash, boil, hop additions, etc. are quite spurious.
I moved to 30 miin boils on every brew I make about two years ago (I use a Brewzilla Gen 4), I've yet to find a single beer that has the kind of problems your mentioning in the video. All my beers after wracking (lagers, pilsners. APA, IPA, bitters etc) are clear and taste perfectly drinkable. The 30 min boils saves both time and money so unless you are so nit picking that you must have that perfectly brewed (as per the beer bible) pint, I'd always say 30 mins is enough.
So, I'd like to see the difference in hops flavor expression for long and short boils. Will .25oz Magnum at 60 min be experienced differently than .5oz for 30 min? Or .75 oz for 15min (if hops utilization an isomerization is linear with time)...
My standard boil length is still 60 minutes kind of based on tradition and momentum, But a couple of my recipes have wildly different oil lengths for style. My ne ipas probably only hit 20 to 25 minutes of boil, most my beers are 60, my Czech beers hit 90, and my barley wine is 180.
I think if you want to do a 3 hours boil to enhance flavours in a Scottish Heavy you need to add more than 3.36% of the grist to Crystal Malt. The whole purpose was to enhance the caramel/toffee like flavours.
Did the tasters that correctly chose the odd beer say they could taste DMS? It’s my understanding only some tounges can taste it same as with tannins. I can taste it in 30min boils with Crisp malts and they told me to do 60 min with their malts.
If I want to make a NE IPA or other beers that don't require hop additions at 30/60 mins, I don't boil. I get it up to 190 for pasteurization and I do whirlpool hops. Because why spend all that time trying to get up those last 20 degrees when in most NEIPAs its almost all whirlpool hop additions anyway. Also most grain today is so modified than it was dozens of years ago that they don't produce much DMS. So you can get away with shorter and now even zero boil times.
There are SMM reduced barley varieties but those are not available for the public. Dms isn't a huge problem in home brewing because the time from whirlpool to fermenter is pretty short. And if you cool your hot cube fast enough the dms formation is limited
Beer historian Ron Pattinson has published articles and charts comparing Scottish breweries boil times vs London breweries and the results were that Scottish brewers did NOT commonly boil longer than other breweries. As a matter of fact it was the London breweries that often boiled for 2.5 to 3 hours. I don't have the data at my finger tips but I recall his data was spread between the late 1800's all the way to the mid 1940's. Myths about Scottish brewing have permeated the beer world for decades and this is one of them... and nearly all are not true.
I usually boil for 60 minutes, sometimes for 30 minutes if I only use late addition hops. However my "boiling" temperature is at 95 °C and never had a problem with DMS.
Generally vaporisation happens vaguely exponentially as the reduced concentration makes it exponentially less likely that a molecule will leave the surface of the liquid. Meaning that boiling longer to drive off a volatile component will be diminishing returns. I don't know about Maillard reactions though. Are they linear?
Is there a maximum amount of the Maillard reactants that can do their thing, so boiling for longer than there are reactants can't advance it beyond a certain point no matter how much longer you boil it? That's not my experience with leaving a chilli at 65°C for tens of hours. You definitely get more browning over time.
I have done some 30 minute, many 60 and a few 90. I used to do the Guinness ‘knockoff’ at 90 and it always came out fabulous. I tried 60 (with appropriate adjustments) and I did not notice a difference (although no tasted side by side). So now do 60. I follow a 60’s reciepe for Olympia Dark, it is 90 minutes. So far, I have kept that since I’m still fine tuning it to get exact flavours I remember from the late 70s. But likely will be great at 60 minutes. It does use flaked corn too.
I think he added the water from the beginning. But it doesn't matter for the result. If you add the water after boiling it's like correcting the OG afterwards.
@@ad.ke.7224 Question was about pre or post mash, because a higher water volume in the mash can pull out more sugars and compounds, vs postmash water add. Also if the water was added post boil, it means the longer boil lost more water and had more of a concentrated wort with potentially more maillard reaction. So best best is to add the extra ~1gal of water (60min boil time) pre boil, that'd isolate the boil time variable the best
What about altitude and boiling temperature? It is important because the lower boiling temperature the lower DMS evaporation. That's take more time to evaporation DMS at higher altitude.
it makes sense that boil length would not affect the maillard reaction. Water can only get up to 212 F (100 C), and the maillard reaction doesnt occur below 284 F (140 C)
The temperature of the water may not go above 212 F but the surface of the pan does. The higher you crank up the heat, the hotter it gets. On a microscopic scale, the bubbles of steam insulate the pan from the water and it gets hotter than 212 F, and the more you turn up the boil, the hotter the pan gets before the liquid finally touches it.
60min here, all styles, even my wee-heavy. I tried 30 and 90 mins, never saw or tasted a difference. Also, since I often do consecutive batches, I use my 60-min boil time to bottle/keg the previous batch; when the boil is done, I quick-cool & xfer to the fermenter I just emptied with the yeast pack still at the bottom. (I use a pressure fermenter, btw.)
Only reasons I do longer than 30 minute boils is to help with bittering efficiency, or because my boil off rate wasn't fast enough to get to the volume I need. Otherwise I will do 30 minute boils.
60 minutes all the way. I did the odd 90 minute boil when using lots of pilsner malt but stopped doing it. 60 minutes is sufficient IMHO. I brew for me and not for judges, so if I like it, that is all that matters to me to be honest.
@@ad.ke.7224 sorry noob here, so your saying to add more water to the 3 hour boil before the boiling or after the boiling add the water needed to be the same as the 1 hour wort
Brulosophy - you can do everything different than standard and still come out with the same beer. Me - I do everything right I win a medal in a beer competition.. I miss on one little thing no medal 🤔🤔🍻
Maybe the testers aren't as good as a beer judge. Sometimes I doubt the results. We don't know if the brewer has had a bad day. The information about the process is quite rudimentary.
Good to know. With my process, the time saving doesn't matter too much. In my case, I spend much more time preparing the equipment, milling and measuring the grain, and then afterwards cleaning and tidying up that I usually just go for 60 mins. I definitely won't ever go for 3h, but 30 mins isn't worth the risk and adapting the recipe either.
I'd love to see a room temperature over night mash, no boil and just steep the hops in that room temperature in the wart. then add yeast and see if anyone can tell the difference video
You'd be able to tell the difference by there being no alcohol in the beer. The enzymes are not active at room temperature, so you would get no conversion of starch to sugar, in the mash
I come from Germany. I'm brewing mostly German lagers and ales. I stick with tradition and boil the wort for 90 minutes. But I thing 60 minutes would be ok too. Boiling for 60 minutes will help you get the most out of your bittering hops.
60 min boil here . It's already expensive. Adding more hops to match IBU , depending on style, can add up. Now take that into 10 gallons, 15, and up batches... Now it's nearly prohibitive.
Kind of lazy YouTubing here I must say. An entire video citing content that already exists on the web. No actual new activity. Back to "nothing matters" and all based upon these Exbeerments like they are peer reviewed industry standards etc... Yet some beers taste better than others. How do they do that? BTW, one of the best ways to avoid DMS is to keep SMM at bay rather than contort your brewing to deal with large amounts of created DMS.
I wonder why RUclipsrs think it is a good idea to keep showing us different sides of their faces, by constantly moving their heads around. It's distracting.
Reassuring data. I've been progressively changing my recipes - which are mostly derived from the traditional brewing text books - to the shorter boil time (30 mins) from the 60 or 90 minute boils, mainly following advice from David Heath's brewing channel. I've certainly not detected any differences or off flavours, and adjusting the hops to achieve equivalent IBU readings has been straightforward. Yes, perhaps overall hop use goes up but energy costs are reduced, particularly going from 90 to 30 min boil and it certainly shortens the brew day!
I find the best part of the brewing day is when I can sit down and have a beer. I enjoy the first 30 minutes of a 60 minute boil.
One of my favourite beers is the Kernel Export stout which has a 3 hour boil. I'd love to see this experiment done with a beer like that.
For the last four years I have been using boiling times from 30 to 50 minutes, depending on the requirements of the style I am brewing. This gives me extra time. On the other hand, I think that in styles such as a doppelbock, a double decoction gives that style a plus. Cheers!
The thing is: the electricity for the additional 30 minutes of cooking costs basically the same as the additional bittering hop necessary.
This could however be combatted by using a higher alpha acid hop.
That's a thing I'm really curious about (and might also be a nice exBEERiment): is 20 grams of Styrian Goldings 2.8% noticeably different from 4 grams (or IBU equivalent) Magnum 14%, both with a 60 minute boil?
30 minute might be interesting as well, there you might be more able to notice a difference.
If it's not it will be a considerable cost saving replacing low AA hops with high AA hops when used as bittering hop.
I wish i could do these experiments on my own and discover lots of things myself. I just don't have the space or equipment to do it. I would totally make a youtube channel out of it.
Interesting results. However, it would be equally interesting to do a test with only traditional Czech floor malts. I would even go as far as betting on the result :)
Yep doing 90mins with a floor malted
My boil length varies based on the level of kid distractions! Cheers!
we had a local brewery do a 15 minute boil, and it was pretty decent.
I'm a 30 minute boiler too, I don't have the patience when doing multiple brews in a day.
Good to know as I head towards my second attempt at BIAB. First run produced an oxidised mess and trying to ensure I can control things to prevent another crass beer 👍
I always do 60 just cuz it works for my fermentor volumes. If I want more color or flavor (pils) I take bout 1.5 gallons of wort 25 minutes into the mash and pressure boil it until its time for mashout. Works like a champ.
Love your channel, thanks a million.
I like 30 minutes boil but ironically, when I have a busy day, I prefer to have longer boils because I can do something else meanwhile. With 30 minutes, I am cleaning, adding my hops and fining and sanitising in parallel. It is a bit stressful.
NB: i don’t have an all in one brew system so I have quite some dishes to clean
I did switch to a 30 minute boil for a while, but my results weren't great. I suspect that this has little to do with the boil rate itself and more that I was looking for corners to cut in general. I returned to a 60 minute boil and used that as part of a larger set of changes to be more rigorous about my brewing. I've been using this year to evaluate processes individually and may try 30 minute boils as part of that.
I have to wonder if we just have much higher quality malt, more tuned specialty malts, and better extraction efficiency than 150yr ago, which makes longer boils unnecessary. Basically, the work is now done in the malt house, not the the boil.
I do 30 min sometimes but usually 60. Makes for a more relaxed day, use the extra time to clean fermenters, kegs, bottles or spend with family.
60 minutes boil here, but always looking for time-saving methods. I'm ussually boiling in 2 pots at the same time so I get 2 or even more styles from 1 brewing day (using 5 fermenters with different yeasts and dry hops). I mash red malts separately and then I add that mini-colorfull wort to the 2nd pot to get other styles from the same day.
Next time I'm gonna boil 1 pot just 30 mins to see if I can find any difference.
The posibility of saving gas and also time is a win-win for me.
About the IBU, I always do FWH, I don't think it will decrease the bitterness that much.
Maybe I will increase some grams.
I've made my 9% chocolate stout twice but the second time I boiled for 2 hours. To me it had a beautifully smooth mouthfeel, more so than the 1 hour boil. 🤷♂️
The only time I've bothered with a longer boil was with a massive barleywine. 3 hour boil on that one, not necessarily for colour or flavour (though colour was certainly affected), but for being able to extract as much sugar as possible, then boiling it down to a volume I can ferment. Ended up with 2.5 gallons of a delicious 12% barleywine.
With modern malting practices - yes, even "traditional floor malting" and what not - embrace the 30 min boil! DMS is generally not a problem as moder malts are so highly modified. As for Maillard reactions, boiling wort does not reach temperatures where these occure at a significant rate, i.e. Maillard influences in malt and wort will likely be most pronounced during kilning. This is not to say that longer boil times may not influence the organoleptic qualities of beer, just that all the reasons why and folk wisdom easily come at odds under scrutiny. As always, make your beer the way you want to do it, but do know that a lot of the reasons for various "traditional" timings regarding mash, boil, hop additions, etc. are quite spurious.
I moved to 30 miin boils on every brew I make about two years ago (I use a Brewzilla Gen 4), I've yet to find a single beer that has the kind of problems your mentioning in the video. All my beers after wracking (lagers, pilsners. APA, IPA, bitters etc) are clear and taste perfectly drinkable. The 30 min boils saves both time and money so unless you are so nit picking that you must have that perfectly brewed (as per the beer bible) pint, I'd always say 30 mins is enough.
I boil as long as I want and love it
So, I'd like to see the difference in hops flavor expression for long and short boils. Will .25oz Magnum at 60 min be experienced differently than .5oz for 30 min? Or .75 oz for 15min (if hops utilization an isomerization is linear with time)...
My standard boil length is still 60 minutes kind of based on tradition and momentum, But a couple of my recipes have wildly different oil lengths for style. My ne ipas probably only hit 20 to 25 minutes of boil, most my beers are 60, my Czech beers hit 90, and my barley wine is 180.
I think if you want to do a 3 hours boil to enhance flavours in a Scottish Heavy you need to add more than 3.36% of the grist to Crystal Malt. The whole purpose was to enhance the caramel/toffee like flavours.
Did the tasters that correctly chose the odd beer say they could taste DMS? It’s my understanding only some tounges can taste it same as with tannins. I can taste it in 30min boils with Crisp malts and they told me to do 60 min with their malts.
If I want to make a NE IPA or other beers that don't require hop additions at 30/60 mins, I don't boil. I get it up to 190 for pasteurization and I do whirlpool hops. Because why spend all that time trying to get up those last 20 degrees when in most NEIPAs its almost all whirlpool hop additions anyway. Also most grain today is so modified than it was dozens of years ago that they don't produce much DMS. So you can get away with shorter and now even zero boil times.
190 is enough for killing bacteria and sanitizing chiller?
There are SMM reduced barley varieties but those are not available for the public. Dms isn't a huge problem in home brewing because the time from whirlpool to fermenter is pretty short. And if you cool your hot cube fast enough the dms formation is limited
Yeah it’s plenty, technically 161°F is enough as long as it’s held at that temp for 15+ seconds.
I've done a no boil neipa in the past too and it turned out great..
I do this too with neipas. I bring up to 90c and hold it for 15 mins to stop conversion. Then it gets crashed to 70c for late additions.
Hope to watch "No-Boil" exbeeriment results soon.
Beer historian Ron Pattinson has published articles and charts comparing Scottish breweries boil times vs London breweries and the results were that Scottish brewers did NOT commonly boil longer than other breweries. As a matter of fact it was the London breweries that often boiled for 2.5 to 3 hours. I don't have the data at my finger tips but I recall his data was spread between the late 1800's all the way to the mid 1940's. Myths about Scottish brewing have permeated the beer world for decades and this is one of them... and nearly all are not true.
I usually boil for 60 minutes, sometimes for 30 minutes if I only use late addition hops. However my "boiling" temperature is at 95 °C and never had a problem with DMS.
When i use Pils - always 90' (DMS)
Generally vaporisation happens vaguely exponentially as the reduced concentration makes it exponentially less likely that a molecule will leave the surface of the liquid. Meaning that boiling longer to drive off a volatile component will be diminishing returns.
I don't know about Maillard reactions though. Are they linear?
Is there a maximum amount of the Maillard reactants that can do their thing, so boiling for longer than there are reactants can't advance it beyond a certain point no matter how much longer you boil it? That's not my experience with leaving a chilli at 65°C for tens of hours. You definitely get more browning over time.
I’m also short n shoddy for life! Ain’t nobody got time for that 60+ min mash and boil! Especially when accounting for cleaning time etc.
I have done some 30 minute, many 60 and a few 90. I used to do the Guinness ‘knockoff’ at 90 and it always came out fabulous. I tried 60 (with appropriate adjustments) and I did not notice a difference (although no tasted side by side). So now do 60.
I follow a 60’s reciepe for Olympia Dark, it is 90 minutes. So far, I have kept that since I’m still fine tuning it to get exact flavours I remember from the late 70s. But likely will be great at 60 minutes. It does use flaked corn too.
Sorry missed the point at around 7:00, did he add the 1 gal post or pre/during mash? Im assuming it was post-mash but just wonderin
I think he added the water from the beginning. But it doesn't matter for the result. If you add the water after boiling it's like correcting the OG afterwards.
@@ad.ke.7224 Question was about pre or post mash, because a higher water volume in the mash can pull out more sugars and compounds, vs postmash water add.
Also if the water was added post boil, it means the longer boil lost more water and had more of a concentrated wort with potentially more maillard reaction.
So best best is to add the extra ~1gal of water (60min boil time) pre boil, that'd isolate the boil time variable the best
What about altitude and boiling temperature? It is important because the lower boiling temperature the lower DMS evaporation. That's take more time to evaporation DMS at higher altitude.
it makes sense that boil length would not affect the maillard reaction. Water can only get up to 212 F (100 C), and the maillard reaction doesnt occur below 284 F (140 C)
Correct.
The temperature of the water may not go above 212 F but the surface of the pan does. The higher you crank up the heat, the hotter it gets. On a microscopic scale, the bubbles of steam insulate the pan from the water and it gets hotter than 212 F, and the more you turn up the boil, the hotter the pan gets before the liquid finally touches it.
60min here, all styles, even my wee-heavy. I tried 30 and 90 mins, never saw or tasted a difference. Also, since I often do consecutive batches, I use my 60-min boil time to bottle/keg the previous batch; when the boil is done, I quick-cool & xfer to the fermenter I just emptied with the yeast pack still at the bottom. (I use a pressure fermenter, btw.)
Has anyone performed a boil in an instant pot or pressure cooker of any kind?
Only reasons I do longer than 30 minute boils is to help with bittering efficiency, or because my boil off rate wasn't fast enough to get to the volume I need. Otherwise I will do 30 minute boils.
I have been going with 20-25 minute boil lengths.
60 minutes all the way. I did the odd 90 minute boil when using lots of pilsner malt but stopped doing it. 60 minutes is sufficient IMHO. I brew for me and not for judges, so if I like it, that is all that matters to me to be honest.
Been a 30min boiler for a very long time .... I must be one of the first few that crossed over 😉
I just attempted a pseudo lager the other day with 100% Pilsner and Saaz and kviek yeast only did a 60 min boil 😱
I cannot believe that a 3 hour boil and a 1 hour boil had the same OG...
If you adjust the water to the boiling time the OG should remain the same.
@@ad.ke.7224 sorry noob here, so your saying to add more water to the 3 hour boil before the boiling or after the boiling add the water needed to be the same as the 1 hour wort
@@omarrascon8020water was added before the boil started. This keeps the density of the wort the same between the 2 beers for the 60 minute duration.
you scale the recipe in the software to match the original ... both batches were not the same in volume
Brulosophy - you can do everything different than standard and still come out with the same beer. Me - I do everything right I win a medal in a beer competition.. I miss on one little thing no medal 🤔🤔🍻
Maybe the testers aren't as good as a beer judge. Sometimes I doubt the results. We don't know if the brewer has had a bad day. The information about the process is quite rudimentary.
What about No Boil at all.. Have you ever tried a Raw NEIPA?
You forgot to mention nor test correctly the main reason longer boils are advantageous. cohumulone reduction
So far done 60mins boil exclusively as I am a cheap ass and hops are expensive :)
Good to know. With my process, the time saving doesn't matter too much. In my case, I spend much more time preparing the equipment, milling and measuring the grain, and then afterwards cleaning and tidying up that I usually just go for 60 mins. I definitely won't ever go for 3h, but 30 mins isn't worth the risk and adapting the recipe either.
I boil most of my ales for 45 minutes just to be different..
I like 75 min boils for most of my beers
I'd love to see a room temperature over night mash, no boil and just steep the hops in that room temperature in the wart. then add yeast and see if anyone can tell the difference video
You'd be able to tell the difference by there being no alcohol in the beer. The enzymes are not active at room temperature, so you would get no conversion of starch to sugar, in the mash
@@chrisnewton9788 I don't no man, Im pretty sure that's how beer was made in the 1800"s
30min boiler here.
30 min boil is plenty for me
I come from Germany. I'm brewing mostly German lagers and ales. I stick with tradition and boil the wort for 90 minutes. But I thing 60 minutes would be ok too. Boiling for 60 minutes will help you get the most out of your bittering hops.
60 min boil here .
It's already expensive.
Adding more hops to match IBU , depending on style, can add up.
Now take that into 10 gallons, 15, and up batches...
Now it's nearly prohibitive.
why do people pronounce the S so weird like that? That just looks unnecessarily difficult. I have never seen that before.
Only use 30min boils. Why waste my time and energy on longer boils? 🙂
Kind of lazy YouTubing here I must say. An entire video citing content that already exists on the web. No actual new activity. Back to "nothing matters" and all based upon these Exbeerments like they are peer reviewed industry standards etc... Yet some beers taste better than others. How do they do that?
BTW, one of the best ways to avoid DMS is to keep SMM at bay rather than contort your brewing to deal with large amounts of created DMS.
First
I wonder why RUclipsrs think it is a good idea to keep showing us different sides of their faces, by constantly moving their heads around. It's distracting.
Watch "The Fast Show" Jazz sketch - Nice!
It’s just a teleprompter… it’s a lot of work to remember all of this. So we do this when we read it makes it look a little more natural and engaging.