Qualifications

REPORT FROM
THE EXAMINERS
2012

Master Brewer, Diploma and General Certificate

(in Brewing, Distilling and Beverage Packaging) reports in one handy volume.
 Table of Contents

Board of Examiners and Examination Centres Page 3

The Statistics and Award Winners Page 5

Report from the Chairman of the Board of Examiners Page 6

Master Brewer Report Page 7

Diploma in Brewing Page 16

Diploma in Distilling Page 26

Diploma in Beverage Packaging Page 33

General Certificate in Brewing and Packaging Page 45

List of Successful Candidates Page 46

2 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND EXAMINATIONS CENTRES 2012

THE EXAMINERS

Chair of the IBD Board of Examiners – David Quain

Diploma in Module 1 David Cook Master Brewer Module1 Robert Illingworth

Brewing Robert McCaig Ian Smith
Ian Smith
Module 2 Alastair Pringle Module 2 Jeremy Stead
Tobin Eppard Robert Kent
George Ritchie
Module 3 Brian Eaton Module 3 Michael Partridge
Andrew Barker Jonathan Brown

Module 4 Robin Cooper

Ian Bearpark

Diploma in Module 1 George Bathgate Module 5 Paul Buttrick

Distilling Douglas Murray Richard Westwood
Michelle Pizzi
Module 2 Iain Campbell
Module 3 Alan Wolstenholme

Diploma in Module1 Ruth Bromley General Certificates GCB Colin McCrorie

Packaging David Taylor Robin Cooper
Jeremy Stead
Module 2 Ruth Bromley GCP Robert Illingworth
Zane Barnes
Robin Cooper

Module 3 Thomas Shellhammer

Robin Cooper

THE EXAM CENTRES

Australia Abbotsford VIC-Fosters China Shanghai-British Council

Adelaide-Lion-Nathan
Brisbane QLD-Lion Dominica Roseau-University of West Indies
Bundaberg QLD-CQ University
Egypt Alexandria-British Council
Cairns QLD-James Cook University
El Obour, Cairo-Al Ahram Beverage Co.
Campbelltown-CUB
Hobart-CUB Cascade Brewery England Alton-Coors Brewers
Launceston-University of Tasmania Bath-Bath Ales
Melbourne VIC-University of Melbourne Blackburn-Daniel Thwaites
Perth WA-Murdoch University Burton on Trent-Molson Coors Brewers Ltd
Sydney NSW-Language & Testing Consultants Cheshire-Thomas Hardy Brewery
Hereford-Heineken
Barbados St Michael-Ministry of Education
Ledbury-Universal Beverages
Botswana Gaborone-SABMiller London-IBD
London-University College
Burundi Bujumbura-Brarudi (Heineken) Manchester-Heineken
Northampton-Carlsberg
Cameroon Douala-British Language Institute Ringwood-Ringwood Brewery
St Austell-St Austell Brewery
Canada Calgary AB-University of Calgary
Stockport-Frederic Robinson
Chambly Quebec-La Brasserie Unibroue
Suffolk-Greene King
Edmonton AB-Labatt
Sunderland-Brewlab
Halifax-Dalhousie University
Tadcaster-Heineken
London ON-Fanshawe College
Thrupp-Stroud Brewery
Manitoba-Diageo Canada Inc
Witney-Wychwood Brewery
Montreal QC-Laporte Consultants
Ottawa ON-Academy of Learning Fiji Suva-Fosters Brewery
St John's-Molson Coors
Toronto-Molson Coors Canada France Lyon-CFPPA de Macon-Davaye
Vancouver BC-Simon Fraser University Strasbourg-Kronenbourg - Carlsberg Group
Winnipeg MB-Canadian Malting Barley Technical
Centre

Examiners Report 2012 3

 Ghana Accra-Accra Brewery Limited – SAB Seychelles Mahe-Ministry of Education
Accra-British Council
South Africa Cape Town-SAB
Guernsey St Peter Port-Guernsey College of Further Educ. Durban-Diageo Global Supply
Durban-NCP Alcohols
Hungary Martfu-Heineken Hungaria Zrt Durban-SAB
Johannesburg-SAB
India Chennai-British Council
Port Elizabeth-SAB
Kolkata-British Council
Pretoria-University of Pretoria
Mumbai-British Council
Sonepat-SABMiller HBL (North India Centre) St Lucia Vieux Fort-Heineken
Indonesia Tangerang-PT Multi Bintang
St Vincent Kingstown-St Vincent Brewery
Ireland Cork-Middleton Distillery
Sudan Juba-Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd – SAB
Dublin-Diageo
Dundalk-Diageo Sweden Lillkyrka-Grythyttan Whisky
Waterford-Diageo
Tanzania Dar es Salaam-Tanzania Breweries Limited
Italy Rome-American University of Rome Dar es Salaam-University of Dar es Salaam
Japan Tokyo-British Council Trinidad Laventille-Angostura
Kenya Nairobi-British Council Uganda Jinja-Nile Breweries Limited -- SAB
Nairobi-East African Breweries Kampala-British Council
Lesotho Maseru-Lesotho Brewing Company USA Albany GA-MillerCoors
Albany NY-Horizon Milling LLC
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur-British Council
Anchorage AK-Broken Tooth Brewing Co.
Selangor-Guinness Anchor Berhad
Chattanooga-University of Tennessee
Singapore-British Council
Cincinnati OH-Samuel Adams Brewing Co
Mongolia Ulaanbaatar-Asia Pacific Breweries Davis CA-University of California
Delaware-Delaware State University
Mozambique Maputo-Cervejas de Mozambique SA Eden NC-MillerCoors
Elkton VA-MillerCoors
Myanmar Yangon-British Council Florida-Florida International University
Fort Worth TX-MillerCoors
N.Ireland Belfast-St Mary's University College
Golden CO-MillerCoors
Bushmills-Old Bushmills Distillery
Irwindale CA-MillerCoors
Namibia Windhoek-Namibia Breweries Madison WI-University of Wisconsin-MBAA
Milwaukee WI-MillerCoors
Netherlands Zoeterwoude-Heineken New York NY-Cambridge Business Institute
Oregon-Oregon State University
New Zealand Auckland-University of Otago Phoenix AZ-Phoenix College
Christchurch-Christchurch Polytechnic Portsmouth-Craft Brew Alliance, Inc
Dunedin-Lion Nathan Windsor Vermont-Harpoon Brewery
Invercargill-Invercargill Brewery Woodinville WA-Craft Brewers Alliance
Nigeria Ibadan-Nigerian Breweries Vietnam Ho Chi Min City-British Council
Kaduna-Nigerian Breweries
Lagos-Guinness Wales Magor-AB-Inbev UK Limited
Osun State-SAB International Breweries
Zambia Lusaka-Zambian Breweries
Scotland Aberfeldy-John Dewar & Sons Ndola-Zambian Breweries plc -- SAB
Aberlour-Speyside Community Centre Bulawayo-Delta Beverages -- SAB
Edinburgh-Heriot Watt University Harare-Delta Beverages
Inverness-Inverness College UHI
Islay-Laphroaig Distillery
Orkney-Orkney College

Our thanks to all the breweries, distilleries, educational establishments and industry locations that hosted IBD examinations during 2012. A
total of 139 centres were made available for examination candidates across 45 countries, up on last year’s numbers of 43 countries hosting
113 centres.

Thanks also to all the staff and volunteers who agreed to act as invigilators at these centres.

4 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

THE STATISTICS

Number of candidates who sat each module

Exam Module 2012 2011 2010 Exam Module 2012 2011 2010
Diploma in Module 1 287 262 244 Master Brewer Module1 6
Brewing Module 2 209 228 215 Old Syllabus Module 2 9
Module 3 174 147 183 Module 3 16
Pass in all modules 98 95 106 Module 4 10
Diploma in Module 1 21 23 30 Module 5 14
Distilling Module 2 14 29 19 Pass in all modules 9
Module 3 20 18 17 Master Brewer Module1 41 41 31
Pass in all modules 14 13 14 New Syllabus Module 2 43 35 14
Diploma in Module1 38 12 11 Module 3 25 27 2
Packaging Module 2 2 14 12 Module 4 16 12 5
Module 3 9 8 9 Module 5 10 10 3
Pass in all modules 6 3 11 Pass in all modules 6 5 2

Percentage of candidates passing each module (average mark %)

Exam Module 2012 2011 Exam Module 2012 2011

Diploma in Module 1 61% (46%) 52% (44%) Master Brewer Module1 51% (54%) 68% (55%)

Brewing Module 2 50% (42%) 50% (43%) New Syllabus Module 2 58% (52%) 46% (53%)

Module 3 70% (55%) 65% (52%) Module 3 60% (59%) 48% (52%)

Diploma in Module 1 86% (62%) 71% (52%) Module 4 88% (61%) 75% (55%)

Distilling Module 2 71% (55%) 66% (49%) Module 5 90% 100%

Module 3 75% (56%) 83% (54%)

*
Diploma in Module1 87% 60%
Packaging Module 2 100% 83%
Module 3 78% 100%
*Revised Syllabus

AWARD WINNERS 2012

MASTER BREWER AWARD DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING AWARDS

JS Hough Award (Master Brewer)

Jonathan W Elks, Carlsberg UK – Midland Section
DIPLOMA IN BREWING AWARDS
JS Ford Award – Overall Diploma in Brewing Award

Samuel Stults, UCDavis – International Section
Crisp Malting Award (Dipl.Brew 1)

Darren E Stegmann, SABMiller, Port Elizabeth – Africa Section
Brewing Engineers Association Award (Dipl.Brew 3)

Tran Thi Ngoc Loan, Vietnam Brewery Ltd – Asia Pacific Section
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING AWARDS
Worshipful Company of Distillers’ Scholarship Award – Overall Dipl. Dist

Stephen J McHugh, Bundaberg, Australia – Asia Pacific Section
Simpsons Malt Award (Dipl.Dist 1)

Flavien Desoblin, Brandy Library Lounge, New York –
International Section
Worshipful Company of Distillers Module 2 (Dipl.Dist 2)

Duncan M Stewart, Diageo, Scotland – Scottish Section
Hyster Award – Overall Diploma in Packaging Award

Shun Chiun Chong, Guinness Anchor Berhad – Asia Pacific Section
Quinn Award (Dipl.Pack 1)

Kristin Wellman, Craft Brewers Alliance, USA – International Section
Micro Matic Award (Dipl.Pack 2)

Geoffrey K Davis, Lion, Australia – Asia Pacific Section
Brewing Engineers Association Award (Dipl.Pack 3)

Shun Chiun Chong, Guinness Anchor Berhad – Asia Pacific Section
GENERAL CERTIFICATE AWARDS
Worshipful Company of Brewers Award, GCB – Livery Companies

Megan M McErlean, Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd, Burton
Worshipful Company of Brewers Award, GCB

Harvey E Gould, Murphy & Son Ltd, UK – Midland Section
Worshipful Company of Brewers Award, GCP

Corey Kellman, Banks Barbados – International Section
Scotch Whisky Association Award, GCD

Alan Wardlaw, Diageo Global Supply, Scotland
FUNDAMENTALS AWARDS
Worshipful Company of Distillers – Fundamentals of Distilling Award

Francisco Richardo Fontes Guerra da Mota, Portugal

Georgina Bell, The Scotch Malt Whisky Society – Scottish Section

Examiners Report 2012 5

REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Celebrating success
Many congratulations from the Board of Examiners to all those who were
successful in the 2012 round of IBD examinations. In all there were 570
module passes in the Diploma portfolio and Master Brewer. I can
increasingly appreciate that study and preparation for exams is not easy –
especially when juggling home and work commitments. It must be a great
relief and hugely satisfying, particularly for the 124 candidates who were
awarded the Diploma or Master Brewer qualifications having completed all
modules especially, if after some years of study.
It is also a pleasure to note that 114 candidates obtained the General
Certificate in Packaging and 224 achieved the General Certificate in
Brewing in the examinations held in November 2011 and May 2012.
There is a splendid array of IBD awards provided by generous benefactors
and linked to various examinations – for details, background see
https://www.ibd.org.uk/qualifications/awards. This year’s award winners
are reported above. The BOE applauds the success of these sixteen people
and recognises that will have performed outstandingly well to achieve
these awards. It is noteworthy that this group come from pretty much the
four corners of the earth ……Vietnam, Portugal, Barbados, South Africa,
Malaysia (2), Australia (2), USA (3), Scotland (3) and England (3). This is
very much in keeping with the IBD’s global reach and ambition.
Guidance to candidates
This is my first report as Chair of the BOE and - having been involved for
some years previously as an examiner - I am struck how pretty much the
same comments and advice to Candidates appears year-after-year in
feedback from the examining team. With a view to doing things differently
and, more importantly, getting the message across clearly to candidates,
mentors, trainers and supporters I list below the BOE’s recommended tips
– past, present and future - for success in examinations. Inevitably some
tips are more important than others and these are badged as ‘top tips’.
Please take on board this feedback and, importantly, refresh prior to
sitting examinations. Remember the BOE are on your side - help them to
help you - they get no pleasure from failing candidates.
Top tips for examination success
• Don’t restrict your learning to IBD revision notes/learning
materials. There are lots of user-friendly articles to be found in
the Brewer and Distiller International or via search engines.
Also check out the new IBD Learning and Resource Centre at
http://www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk
• Do not 'question spot' - the Examiners base their questions on
the syllabus – use the same approach for your learning and
preparation.
• Read (and reread) the question and plan your answer - mind
mapping can help.
• Use diagrams and schematics especially when asked to. Use
colour, (the right) scale and labelling and remember …. practice
makes perfect!
• Time management is a perennial piece of feedback. A key to
success is answering all the required questions however briefly
(and not more!)
• Do use tables and lists, they can provide clarity and headline
detail.
• Write as legibly and clearly as you can and use ink (not pencil).
• Start a new question on the next fresh page, number it clearly
both here and on the front page.
• Answer the question you are asked. Answering the question
you hoped you would be asked and offering (unasked for)
information wastes time and will not win marks.
6 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
(some further) Tips for examination success
• Find someone to advise you, support you, enthuse you and
bounce things off. A mentor can make a huge difference!
• When answering an exam question keep things straight. Don’t
waffle, crack jokes or appeal to the examiner to be kind hearted.
• Read (and reread) the examiner’s reports for the examination you
are taking. Better still read and study a few reports – these can
be found at - http://www.ibd.org.uk/learning/learning-
resources/examiners-report/90/examiners-report
• Starting your answer by writing out the question is a waste of
your time, which could be better used answering the question.
Process
We are keen to tune and develop IBD examination practices and processes.
By way of example, the BOE has this year significantly revised its meeting
calendar. The summer meetings - which in the past reviewed results by
examination team - have been replaced by a short meeting between the
Steve Curtis (IBD Technical Manager) and myself. Key to making this happen
(and work) was the introduction of ‘cloud’ computing enabling each
examination team to post and review results via the internet.
A further development is to focus each Diploma and Master Brewer team –
full attendance is encouraged - on the February examination setting meeting.
Here each team spends a day robustly reviewing, challenging and revising
the examination. The outcome is an agreed script from which, importantly,
an agreed marking scheme is created for use by examiner(s) and moderator.
Regarding the BOE moderators, it is my view that the IBD process for
examination and moderation is exceptionally robust. Papers on the cusp of
pass or fail – or more happily at or between high grades – are automatically
flagged for review by the exam group Moderator. This pair of fresh eyes will
both review the marked manuscript as is and then review the paper against
the agreed marking scheme. From experience the moderation process can
result in no change or in a mark or two being found or lost. It makes a
difference and provides assurance.
2013
It is wise not to overpromise and therefore under deliver. The next year will
be a year of consolidation for the BOE. That said, some of the things planned
2013 include the launch of the General Certificate in Spirits Packaging, the
pilot of General Certificate in Malting, an online best practice ‘candidate
welcome pack’ and further proactive recruitment of the BOE.
(and finally) Many thanks to
• The candidates of IBD examinations – past, present and future.
• The redoubtable body of IBD examiners and moderators who set
and mark such a splendid and diverse portfolio of examinations.
• The good folk in the ‘engine room’ at Clarges Street who manage
the growing end-to-end complexity of the examinations.
• Simon Jackson and, especially, Steve Curtis for gently introducing
me into the many and varied wonders of being the Chair of the
BOE.
David Quain
 The Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Examinations 2012
Question Papers and Examiners’ Reports
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2012
Module 1 – Raw Materials and Wort Production
This is the third year that the new format exam, consisting of a two-hour
short questions and multiple choice paper, to test the breadth of the
syllabus and a two-hour long essay paper with four questions to be
attempted out of a choice of six, to test depth of knowledge.
Forty-one candidates sat the papers, 21 candidates passed, which is a pass
rate of 51%.
Annual pass rate
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
This pass rate compares unfavourably with previous years’ results (see
graph) and is well below the median over the same time span.
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
The marks for paper 1 ranged from 34/100 to 80/100
Barley Selection, Agronomy and Handling - Not many candidates were
able to describe the effect of weather conditions on barley quality nor
were they able to explain why barley stored in bulk silos needs to be
ventilated with cool, dry air.
Malt and Maltings - Too few candidates knew how to describe, even
briefly, the operation of a combined germination-kilning vessel (GKV) in a
modern malthouse.
The rise in popularity of micro-breweries and their products requires
brewers once again to know about specialty malts and how they are
produced.
Adjuncts - Candidates are well-versed in the methods of production and
use of adjuncts.
Hops - Hops are being increasingly used to add complex flavours and
differentiate beers in the market place. Their cultivation, including the
diseases to which they are prone must be part of every brewer’s
knowledge base.
Water - Despite being majority constituent of beer two few candidates
knew the geological formations likely to contain aquifers and how a slow
sand filter might be used to treat raw water.
Brewhouse Operations - A third of candidates correctly calculated the cost
of making wort with two different malts. Too many candidates ignored
the moisture content of the malt (stated in the question) and assumed
they were buying completely dry malt.
The calculation of hop grist was answered better this year than last.
Brewhouse Design and Layout - Candidates struggled to calculate the
diameter of a lauter tun and some mixed up diameter with radius so
produced an answer that was out by a factor of two.
Plant Cleaning - Most candidates correctly identified that plant being
cleaned in a brewhouse does not normally require a sanitizing rinse.
Quality and Troubleshooting - Many candidates had a sound grasp of
quality systems and troubleshooting techniques.
Computer Security - Many candidates were unaware that Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems are just as vulnerable to
cyber attack as are any other IT systems.
Brewhouse Management - Several candidates assumed that each brew had
to pass completely through the brewhouse before another one could be
initiated. Consequently their calculation of the number of brews per week in
the specified plant was in the low teens.
Paper 2: Essay Questions
In previous years examiners have exhorted candidates to read the questions
carefully and allocate sufficient time to answer each question. This year no
candidate answered less than the required four questions and only one
candidate failed to read the exam paper correctly and wrote an answer,
which bore little relationship to the question asked.
Question 1- Biochemical and physiological changes in barley.
Briefly describe the biochemical and physiological changes that barley
undergoes during malting.
Explain in detail how those changes may be controlled and regulated
during the malting process.
This question was attempted by 27 candidates (66%) and of those 14 (52%)
passed.
This question elicited a couple of very good answers though the overall pass
rate was low. Malt is a key raw material for brewing beer so a brewer needs
to understand how barley changes into malt and how the maltster can effect
and control that process. One aspect of the steeping process that was often
ignored or hardly discussed was the importance of air rests in flushing away
carbon dioxide and introducing more oxygen for the respiring grains.
Question 2 – Hop market and hop products.
Write a short essay on the current world hop market.
Hops are used to bring distinct flavour and aroma characteristics to
different beers. Explain how hops and hop products can be employed to
accomplish this diversity and discuss the importance of different hop
varieties available in the market place.
This question was answered by 22 candidates (54%) with 13 achieving a pass
mark (59%).
There were no really competent answers to this question and the overall
pass rate was mediocre. Some candidates had made an effort to mug up on
the hop market and answers to this part of the question were an
improvement on previous years. A surprising number of candidates failed to
mention reduced hop products for protection against sun strike in bottled
beer, as well as improved foam performance, and hop oils for introducing a
‘dry hop’ character received scant mention.
Examiners Report 2012 7
Question 3 – Uses of water and specifications.
Discuss various ways of using water in a brewhouse.
Include an appropriate specification for each application mentioned and
evaluate options as to how raw water, high in bicarbonate and nitrate,
might be treated to achieve the specifications described.
This question was answered by 32 candidates (78%) with 17 achieving a
pass mark (53%).
A question about the most basic of raw materials for making beer failed to
elicit basic facts about water use and appropriate treatment to render it
suitable for its different uses. Specifications for the various applications
were often sketchy and inaccurate. There were several competent
answers for treatment to reduce bicarbonate and nitrate levels in brewing
water but there were quite a few which demonstrated an unexpected lack
of knowledge about the topic.
Question 4 – Mash separation systems.
Outline the design features and operation of two mash separation
systems. Explain how the operating parameters of these systems may be
adjusted to achieve sweet wort of the desired quality.
This question was answered by 35 candidates (85%) and of those 24 (69%)
passed.
This was the most popular question of the exam and in general was
answered satisfactorily. Several candidates used diagrams to clarify their
descriptions, which enabled some to reap extra marks. However a
diagram must be neatly drawn, with all the features of the equipment
shown and be correctly labelled. Taking time during the revision process
to practice diagram drawing may well pay dividends in the exam.
Question 5 –Recipe calculation.
Fully calculate the recipe, including typical specifications for the raw
materials used, for the wort production stage to produce 1000 hl of
packaged beer with the following specification.
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2012
Module 2 – Fermentation and Beer Processing
This year was the third for the new style syllabus and examination. There
were 2 papers, the first consisting of multiple choice and short answer
questions and the second being a traditional essay style paper. Forty three
candidates submitted scripts for the two papers. 25 gained pass grades, a
pass rate of 58.1%. There were no candidates at grades A or B, 4 at grade C
and 21 at grade D.
Paper 1 – Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
29 candidates (69%) achieved the required standard in this paper, with
two very good papers returned. Marks ranged from 31/100 to 78/100.
Paper 2 – Essay Style
There was one very good paper, 5 good papers, 15 comfortable passes, 8
disappointing papers and 14 were clustered around the minimum
standard.
There were some areas of examination technique that let candidates
down. Candidates need only write the question number at the start of
their answers. There is no benefit or score attracted by copying out the
question from the examination paper. Time management was clearly a
problem for some candidates with 3 fairly complete answers presented,
and then the fourth was barely started. There were some questions that
8 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
a) Alcohol 4.5% abv
b) Colour 11o EBC
c) Bitterness 22 IBU
The beer has a late hop addition of 0.1kg/hl of type 90 pelleted aroma
hops with an alpha acid content of 5%.
State all assumptions and show all calculations.
This question was answered by 25 candidates (61%) with 21 achieving a pass
mark (84%).
This was the second most popular question of the exam and achieved the
highest pass rate of any question. In general candidates made all the right
assumptions about extract recovery and losses and by and large the
calculations for malt and hops were accurate. In general the less successful
answers failed to take into account the utilization of the kettle hop or the
contribution of the late hop to final bitterness and in some cases
miscalculated the hop grist.
Question 6 – Risk and hazard analysis.
Explain how the analysis of risk and hazard in a brewhouse improves
health and safety for operators and food safety for consumers.
This question was answered by 23 candidates (56%) with 13 achieving a pass
mark (57%).
Those candidates who gained a pass mark in this question did so largely
because they demonstrated a good grasp of how analysis of risk and hazard
in the brewhouse could identify potentially harmful processes. A brief
description of hazard analysis and critical control points, or HACCP, to
provide a systematic preventive approach to food safety was a good base
from which to answer this question. The use of judicious examples from
experience and adopting a similar approach to operator safety would have
rounded out the answer perfectly.
Bob Illingworth
candidates had either not read properly or had misunderstood the direction
required, resulting in irrelevant information being presented.
Several questions were ideally answered by including a well-presented
labelled diagram, flow chart or graph, or a table of information and
comments. This is a simple way of presenting large amounts of information
without taking too much time. Diagrams ranged from very good to very
poor. The best used at least half a side of paper, were drawn with a ruler
and were neatly annotated with appropriate labels. The worst were very
small, untidy and without adequate labeling. It is worth noting for future
candidates that they are recommended to practice drawing diagrams of all
of the main plant items (vessels, filters etc.) as part of their preparation.
Candidates should also note that information supplied in one answer can be
referred to in another answer without repeating the information in full.
One feature that was quite common this year was when responding to a
question asking what to do to correct a faulty situation, many candidates
said to check a parameter or a process and left it there. “Checking” does not
put anything right, it is what action to take as a result of discovering an
anomaly that corrects the fault and scores marks in this paper
Question 1
Describe in detail, using charts and tables where appropriate, a typical
process specification and process profile for the fermentation and
maturation of a lager type beer.
Include all key parameters that will influence final beer quality, and
indicate how the processes are controlled to ensure product consistency.
Thirty four candidates attempted this question with 19 achieving the pass
standard (55.9%). There were 3 very good answers.
This question asked for the fermentation and conditioning process
specification and profile for a lager type beer. One or 2 well drawn charts
with scales clearly annotated provided a good start to the answers of many
candidates. Several answers however failed to include parameters other
than temperature and PG/AE and so failed to gain many marks. Yeast
count, dissolved oxygen diacetyl levels, pH, etc. were all important
parameters to discuss. It was also required to indicate how these
parameters are actually controlled, and better answers discussed control
of yeast pitching, wort oxygenation, temperature profile, yeast quality and
diacetyl levels.
Common errors in the charts were carelessly drawn profiles that didn’t
start at time zero, temperature rises that appeared to start when
attenuation was nearly complete, no lag phase or lag phases that lasted 2
days of a 6-day fermentation.
Question 2
With the aid of clearly labelled diagrams, describe the design and
operation of a Cleaning in Place (CIP) system suitable for cleaning bright
beer tanks and process pipework in an unmanned tank farm area.
Describe the microbiological tests and other checks that may be used to
audit the effectiveness of the CIP process.
Thirty four candidates attempted this question with 23 achieving standard
(67.6%). There were 3 very good answers.
This is a variation of a regular question in this paper requiring diagrams
and discussion of an automated CIP system. Many of the diagrams were
quite basic and did not show many of the sensors and controls required for
such a system, although there was often good follow-up in the text to
cover these. The descriptions of suitable cleaning cycles were often quite
vague and lacked sufficient detail. They should have included details of
time, temperature, and nature of chemical (not just “caustic” or “acid” or
“sterilant”). Many answers showed caustic cleans with no provision for CO2
removal or replenishment. Several answers forgot the include details of
product mains cleans. Better answers showed how such system could
clean both mains and a tank at the same time, and included the link to
production control software so that empty tanks could be handed over for
CIP, full tanks were blocked and as a fall back if the initial scavenge showed
fluid still flowing after a set time it would shut down to prevent beer
contamination.
The second part of the answer, worth about 33% of the marks, should
have included details of traditional swabbing, rapid swabbing tests, rinse
water examination, routine microbiological assay of the beer itself, visual
audits, inspections, software records, chemical strength cross-checks, etc.
Merely stating “swab and plating” and “ATP test” or similar does not
display the level of knowledge required. How the sample is examined and
what results are expected should always be stated.
Question 3
Discuss the possible causes of lower than normal filter run lengths in a
kieselguhr filtration operation. Describe practical measures that could be
taken in the fermentation and beer processing areas to overcome such
issues.
Thirty four candidates attempted this question with only 12 achieving
standard (35.3%), though there were 2 very good answers.
This question tested knowledge and experience of kieselguhr filter
operations, and it found many candidates lacking. A good start to the
answer that was given by very few was to state what a normal filter run
length would be in terms of time and volume, and then why a decision may
be made to terminate a run early. This could be due to excessive pressure
build up or a persistent haze in the filtered beer. The symptoms may
develop gradually or there may be a step change.
The potential causes of these changes should then be listed, with an
explanation of why they cause a pressure or haze issue. Excessive solids in
the incoming beer is clearly a potential issue, but there are several possible
reasons for this (vessel cropping, centrifuge performance, yeast flocculation,
vessel changeover/buffer tank operation, etc.) and all should be quoted
because they will have different corrective actions. Very few people
mentioned filter aid dosing as a potential problem, which could arise from a
blockage, poorly made-up slurry or a badly controlled or maintained dosing
pump. Over dosing can also lead to an early finish as the filter fills up and
the pressure rises sharply before the normal volume is filtered. High haze
could arise from, for example, poorly stabilised beer, autolysed yeast, or a
breach in the filter bed or support structure.
All the above causes should then have a corrective action allocated to them
(not just “check the cropping procedure” – see above). The answer should
also explain how the corrective action addresses the issue. One good way to
answer this question is to draw up a table of cause, explanation and
corrective action.
Question 4
An international brewing company is considering granting a contract to
another company to brew and package one of its premium beer brands.
Describe the audit schedule and process for the operations from
fermentation to bright beer tank that would assess the capability of the
potential partner to meet the quality and product safety requirements
appropriate to an international premium brand.
Twenty one candidates attempted this question with 14 achieving standard
(66.7%). There was only one very good answer.
The audit procedure and schedule to assess the capability of a brewery to
fulfil product quality and food safety was requested. This would usually start
with a pre-audit questionnaire for the brewery to return to the auditor
where capacities, equipment description, process control etc. would be
stated. Several candidates followed this route; many others chose to cover
this at the audit opening and were not penalised for this.
The bulk of the audit should cover product quality and food safety
management systems, technical process management, quality standards
achieved and food safety practices observed. This would be through a
combination of examination of records and visual assessment of the plant.
The findings should all be compared to the contracting auditor’s company
standards. Many answers were weak in the area of food safety issues, some
not mentioning them at all, others just checking for a HACCP system in place
but no actual auditing of it.
There should be a final review of findings, identifying gaps from the ideal
process, shortcomings in food safety procedures and agreeing how they may
be addressed, A few answers went on to describe a trial brewing
programme, but this was not asked for.
Question 5
Describe the principles of operation of the various commercially available
systems for producing bright beer that is ready for packaging from green
beer at the end of cold storage.
Discuss the relative merits of the systems in relation to costs, beer quality
and environmental considerations.
Twenty candidates attempted this question with 14 achieving standard
Examiners Report 2012 9
(70%), making this the least popular but second best answered question.
There were 2 very good answers.
This question required candidates to demonstrate knowledge of earth
filtration and cross-flow filtration, and the various plants available within
each category. A good start was made by candidates who described how
kieselguhr/earth filtration worked in principle, and then went on to draw
and describe how plate and frame, candle and screen filters worked in
practice, including precoat, filtration and discharge. Poorer answers came
from candidates who were clearly only familiar with one type, whilst
better answers quoted flow rates, pressures and turn round times.
Cross-flow systems were less well understood, but most candidates at
least were aware of the principle of operation. The nature of the
membranes, pore sizes, the arrangement of modules in series or parallel,
the flow patterns and back-flush regimes were well covered in the better
answers.
The comparison of systems, worth about 33% of the marks, should have
included consideration of beer quality, capital cost, running costs including
labour, utilities and maintenance, and safety and environmental aspects.
Question 6
“Oxygen can be the brewer’s friend but also a great enemy“. Illustrate
this statement by reviewing the impact on the final beer of dissolved
oxygen from the point of cold wort leaving the wort cooler to the bright
beer tank.
Tabulate and justify a specification for dissolved oxygen levels at the
various stages of the process from wort cooler to the BBT, and identify
means of measurement and control of these levels.
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2012
Module 3 – Packaging and Beer Dispense
In 2012, 25 papers were received of which 14 (56%) achieved the pass
standard. This represents an improvement on last year’s performance.
Pass marks were seen at grades B, C, and D.
Paper 1 was well answered with all but one passing the first paper as
compared with 16 passing the second. Overall candidates appear to be
familiar with the range and depth of questions as applied to the short
answer format, however when pressed in the second paper to
demonstrate depth of experience this proves to be more difficult.
The overall performance in the examination is still within the pass rates
seen in the past, albeit at the higher end. The new format performance
does not seem to reflect the written paper performance as clearly as last
year. It could be seen that paper one flattered some candidate’s
knowledge, which when pressed in paper two exposed a lack of depth and
experience.
Paper 1 – Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
In general, questions requiring lists or specific examples were answered
best. If details were requested the answers on values were wide ranging.
At this level an accurate description of a pasteurisation curves and
familiarity with the key areas of a can seam should not pose any problems
to a well-prepared candidate.
Bottling questions were answered best with the less creative candidates
using bottling examples for questions that were clearly aimed at large pack
operations. This echoes the comments from last year regarding the lack of
exposure of candidates to all areas of the syllabus.
10 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Twenty nine candidates attempted this question with 21 achieving standard
(72.4%) but with only 1 very good answer.
Oxygen is the brewer’s friend at the early stage of fermentation, so answers
should have included why it is needed for yeast growth and what the impact
would be of too much or too little of it.
Most people were aware of the effect on haze and flavour stability of
ingress later on in the process, though there were fewer who mentioned the
possibility of diacetyl increase and the effect on process delays of rework or
blending.
Most candidates proposed valid in-process specifications, but very few knew
how measuring instruments actually worked (just stating “install an
Orbisphere in line” is not adequate).
To control levels in wort either a fast response sensor is needed to provide
feedback control or air or oxygen is injected by mass flow ratio control. Most
candidates failed to explain their system adequately.
Controlling levels in beer is all about avoiding accidental ingress. There are
many measures that are adopted in process (19 on my check list), but many
candidates failed to get beyond eliminating leaks on pumps and joints,
blanketing centrifuges and tanks, and purging mains. Other measures such
as inert gas purging of additive solutions and filter aid slurry, fitting alarms
to in-line sensors and auto shut down controls, use of low level probes and
flow switches to avoid pumping from empty vessels and ensuring deaerated
liquor and CO2 are within specification were variously quoted in better
answers.
Jeremy Stead
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
In paper 2 there was one unpopular and three popular questions. One
question was answered poorly.
The best candidates were able to clearly demonstrate their knowledge and
direct experience of a topic area in demonstrating experience and including
accurate references sensible values and justifications to a range of process
parameters
Examination technique failed certain candidates with questions missed
completely or obviously answered under a severe time constraint. Certain
candidates continue not to read the questions and miss out key elements
that have been requested. Good diagrams were rare, if well laid out they
can provide an excellent source of data. Poorer diagrams were accompanied
by data hidden in scripts later in the answer.
Some questions were answered well with high scores however all
candidates had a least one question that they failed to maintain their
standard on.
Some answers contained detailed techniques and ways of working that did
not address the fundamental question. For example, giving details on how
to organise a problem solving team and reference to different problem
solving techniques does not satisfactorily answer or demonstrate how to
solve a specific problem as requested in the question.
Finally if using technique specific acronyms, candidates should initially
explain what they stand for, it not is assumed that the examiner will be
familiar with the detail, equally the examiner is expecting candidates to
demonstrate their knowledge by explaining the acronym.
Question 1 – Plant Design
A new site is to be established for keg filling with an annual capacity of
900,000HL split between 30L and 50L kegs 40% will be in 30 L keg size.
With the aid of a diagram describe and detail the individual plant
required includes throughput, capacity, layout and manning. State any
assumptions made.
Which quality parameters should be specified in the plant acceptance
tests protocol?
This was the third most popular question with 80% of the candidates
answering and 55% achieved a pass, making it the equal third best-
answered question.
The key to answering this question well was to address all details of the
calculation and justify the final assessment of working hours and necessary
throughputs.
Good answers were able to deal with practical solutions explaining their
choice of shift patterns and throughputs with sensible estimates of
efficiency. A good diagram is key to answering this question quickly. Many
candidates failed to address the commissioning testing and protocols.
Good answers demonstrated a wide range of acceptance criteria covering
this last point well.
Question 2 – Labeling systems
Detail the key process differences between wet and self-adhesive
labeller design.
Describe the quality risks and benefits associated with both types of
process and comment on the impact of other materials on the overall
performance of each process.
This was the least popular question with 24% of candidates answering. Of
those answering 33% met the pass standard.
This style of question allows the candidate to display knowledge of the
features of both main types of labeling processes, labeller and label design,
process, and functionality. Although bottling was clearly a strength of
many candidates, only the best answers demonstrated a good knowledge
of both wet and self adhesive labeling systems. A comparison chart was
the easiest way to compare both systems in terms of capital, equipment,
dispense label options, operating cost, application speeds, efficiency and
versatility. The section on material that can impact on both systems was
poorly answered demonstrating little practical experience of operations
management. Better answers included good diagrams and knowledge of
common material variations that can impact on quality and performance
Question 3 – Flavour Integrity
For a non-returnable bottling line operation, describe the policies
procedures and processes that would be subject to inspection during a
third party customer food safety audit.
This was the most popular question with 96% candidates answering it.
There was a wide range in the quality of the answers with 54% achieving
the pass standard.
Answers to this question ranged from very good to poor. The poorer
answers focused on the audit process rather than the process of being
audited. These answers were general in their approach to auditing and
had a few references to the key food safety aspects of managing a bottling
operation. The better answers demonstrated experience of third party
rather than internal audit and focused on the reasons why such policies
and procedures would be of importance to an auditor.
Question 4 – Large pack consumer complaints investigation
Haze and taste complaints have increased substantially in large pack beer
(keg or cask).
Describe an investigation process, which would identify the cause of this
increase, and detail what corrective actions could be taken to remedy the
problem. Beer quality immediately prior to packaging is good.
This was the second most popular question with 92% of candidates
answering it and was the best overall with 65% achieving the pass standard.
Most candidates were able to produce a comprehensive list of the likely
causes of consumer complaints relevant to large pack beer. All answers were
weak on the product traceability and trending investigations to narrow down
the cause of the problem. Most displayed good knowledge of the potential
areas that such problems could arise, how an investigation would be
structured in the operational unit and what sensible preventative actions
would be necessary.
Poorer answers focused on problem solving structures in isolation.
Question 5 – Traceability
What traceability information should be collected on a small pack
packaging line?
Describe how the information can be used in conjunction with data from
other information systems to trace batch history in the following
situations;
• A metallic taste taint consumer complaint in a canned product.
• Recall of stock due to a glass defect in a batch of bottles recently
filled
• An incorrect barcode on a tray of either cans or bottles
This was a popular question with 56% candidates attempting it and 42% of
candidates achieving the pass standard. Three answers were very good.
This question was best approached systematically with consideration to
product materials, process, records, timings and results. The understanding
of product batches in terms of liquids, materials, processing times and
finished goods was explained fully in the best answers. This was usually
backed up with practical evidence of the approach to the specified material
problems. Poorer answers focused on usage and efficiency data and did
reference process data, for example seam measurements fully. There was
also a tendency to rely on a full explanation of the problem from the supplier
rather than being able to demonstrate the capability to identify the root
cause of a material fault in house.
Question 6 – Dispense
Identify the key features of a retail outlet cellar.
For each of the features identified explain the impact on the product as
experienced by the consumer.
This was second least popular question with 48% of candidates answering it
and only 17% achieving the pass standard.
All candidates answered this question poorly with no high scoring marks. It
appeared to be a default question with candidates displaying little
knowledge of the workings of a retail outlet cellar other than being able to
list and range of features that one could expect. A thorough answer covered
the product types and range, delivery patterns and stock control hence
storage capability, the environment of the cellar, services and prerequisite
procedures such as pest control and safety. Accurate diagrams of key
dispense items are an aid to demonstrate understanding of equipment
requirements, capability and the risks associated with their use. Impact on
the consumer was explained in generalities in the poorer answers.
Michael Partridge
Examiners Report 2012 11
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2012
Module 4 – Resource Management and Regulatory
Compliance
A total of sixteen candidates attempted the two examinations.
Paper 1 – Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
As in previous years the multiple choice and short answer questions were
designed to cover the syllabus with a range of depths and difficulties.
Candidates are always advised to allocate their time in proportion to the
number of marks per question.
The best candidate achieved 73% whilst the weakest achieved 44%.
This year questions on the environment, health and safety, quality
assurance and resource planning were answered more strongly than
finance and supply chain. Particular strengths were shown in the fields of
environmental aspects (Q2), organoleptic parameters (Q4), specific energy
consumption (Q7), hazards (Q10), risks (Q11), HACCP (Q15), factors
influencing production capacity (Q24), stock rotation (Q26), condition
monitoring (Q28), 5S (Q30) and six-sigma (Q32).
For Q1 (water cycle or water supply chain) the examiner naturally assumed
that, as this is a brewing exam, candidates would answer in terms of a
brewery operation (water taken from the environment, water treatment,
water use, waste water treatment, water returned to the environment as
evaporation, steam etc, treated waste water returned to the environment
via groundwater, streams, rivers, sea). A number of candidates answered
much too simplistically (rain, evaporation, rain) – a clue was in the number
of marks allocated for the question (6)!
One of the safety questions (Q9 – a list of the principal risks to health from
brewery work activities) did not generally produce the expected good
answers. The examiner was seeking examples such as dermatitis resulting
from skin contact with irritant substances, deafness resulting from noise,
musculoskeletal injuries resulting from slips, trips or falls. Too many
candidates incorrectly quoted the causes rather than the risks themselves
and consequently had marks deducted. An answer gaining full marks (6)
would have listed at least 6 examples (out of some 8 - 10 possible).
Disappointingly for Q12, no candidate was able to quote “Effectiveness” as
being the other type of auditing in addition to “Compliance” – the question
has appeared previously!
Q21 (projects classed as capital expenditure) listed 7 alternative answers
with (deliberately) no prompt as to how many were correct. Candidates
gained full marks (2) with at least three of the four alternatives sought by
the examiner. Four candidates had all four correct answers.
Q25 (the acronym or abbreviation AVCO) surprisingly produced only two
correct answers – Average Cost.
The six losses of TPM (Q29) were either known or not known with
consequent very good marks (up to 6) or very bad (0).
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Discuss the probable consequences of global warming for the brewing
industry.
Explain the steps the brewing industry can take to mitigate the effects of
global warming.
Eleven candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging from
13 to a good 20.
The examiner was seeking a discussion around the impacts on water
availability (restrictions on abstraction, regulation, cost), raw materials
12 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
(crop yields, move towards farming for biofuels), packaging materials
(availability, cost of production with pressure on carbon emissions) and
consumables and distribution (carbon emissions). In addition, companies are
increasingly aware of regulation (cost of carbon), technology (farming being
given over to biofuels) and consumer behaviour (low carbon footprint
products) as being drivers of value.
Having discussed the consequences of global warming, the examiner was
seeking an emphasis on proactivity to survive and prosper with companies
anticipating trends and changing products and processes accordingly.
The majority of candidates successfully explained energy saving techniques
for heat/electricity, water conservation, CO2 reduction, effluent minimization
and solid waste minimization. The very best answers also quoted the
landscaping of brewery sites, the planting of trees etc.
Question 2
Explain the process of a Health and Safety risk assessment.
Using examples, discuss different techniques for managing risk and when
each might
be appropriate.
This question was attempted by eleven candidates with marks ranging from
13 to an excellent near model answer 23 marks. As in previous years, Health
and Safety management is rightly recognised as an area of high competence
for most candidates sitting the Master Brewer examination. This competence
was again apparent with eight of the submissions being awarded 20 marks or
more this year. It is perhaps surprising that five candidates chose not to
answer this question – doubtless a source of regret for some!
The examiner was seeking the key stages in any assessment:
• Look for the hazard
• Decide who may be harmed and how
• Evaluate the risks and decide whether the existing precautions
are adequate or whether more should be done
• Record the findings
• Review the assessment and revise if necessary
These stages should have been expanded to explain who should carry out
the assessment, how risks may be quantified, use of risk grids etc.
In discussing techniques for managing risk (removing, isolating, reducing,
transferring, retaining), the examiner was seeking specific examples. In
reducing and retaining risk, the better answers quoted the use of PPE, work
permits, safe working practices, competence and awareness training.
Importantly the need for regular reviewing of the risks in the light of
experience was constantly stressed.
Two candidates misinterpreted the second part of the question and provided
additional examples of how risk may be assessed.
Question 3
How can Critical Control Points be analysed and determined? How can they
be communicated, monitored and maintained?
Fourteen candidates attempted this question with marks ranging from 11 to
an excellent 23.
The examiner was looking for a logical sequence of events which most would
describe as a 7 stage analysis:-
• Identify any hazards that must be prevented, eliminated or
reduced
• Identify the critical control points (CCPs) at the steps at which
control is essential
• Establish critical limits at CCPs
 • Establish procedures to monitor the CCPs
• Establish corrective actions to be taken if a CCP is not under
control
• Establish procedures to verify whether the above are working
effectively
• Establish documents and records to demonstrate the effective
application of the above measures
There were a number of variations in description but the main elements
were covered. Better candidates included a flow sheet to identify CCP’s or
a process to eliminate the need allowing for physical, chemical or
microbiological hazards.
Communication and Monitoring was well answered by the better
candidates and included:-
• Part of the design process of new plant or modifications,
verified on actual installation
• Team/Shift training & subsequent training records
• Key equipment on a PPM schedule
• Part of ISO or other auditing process including external audits
• Regular departmental reviews
• Daily check list before plant operation
• Possible data recording & storage of records for traceability
Linking communication and monitoring with normal work procedures was
highlighted as the best way to keep it in the forefront and emphasise the
importance.
Question 4
Define a discretionary cost.
List the components of a fixed cost budget and indicate which items are
non-discretionary and which are discretionary.
Explain how discretionary expenditure may be used to maintain a profits
forecast.
What are the risks of such an approach?
Ten candidates chose to answer this question. Marks ranged from a very
poor 5 to 18.
A discretionary cost can be defined as one, which can be curtailed or
eliminated in the short term without having an immediate impact on
short-term profitability. Few candidates drew a distinction between short
term and longer-term impact if extended for too long. One candidate did
link the prospect of a reduction in discretionary spend with an initiative to
reduce energy costs. The best candidates understood that this was very
much a short-term option in one financial year and that long-term damage
was a risk.
Fixed costs such as Insurance, leasing, depreciation were correctly seen as
options for reduction but not discretionary in the short term. Depreciation
could be reduced by not spending new capital but that could lead to plant
and performance issues in the future.
Many candidates did not adequately identify discretionary cost or the
implications of not spending. Advertising and training were often quoted
but disappointingly maintenance was often included without any
reference to the implications of plant performance.
Staff welfare: canteens etc. were linked with staff motivation and most
candidates identified customer entertaining and tightening up of travel
arrangements. Bonus payments were often mentioned and risk of losing
staff through de-motivation was well covered.
A reduction in Research and Development was covered by some
candidates together with the implications for falling behind the market.
Question 5
Explain the role and features of an MRP system in meeting forecast
customers’ demand. What is the advantage of linking the manufacturing
process to the financial system in a MRP system?
This question was answered by seven candidates with generally
disappointing marks ranging from 9 to a reasonable 16.
Most candidates identified the role of MRP in working through a bill of
materials (BOM) to ensure materials were available for the proposed
production plan based on sales forecasts. Most identified the ability to
value work in progress (WIP) and losses. More advanced users linked to
utilities consumption. The better candidates identified more of the points
shown below but most described an MRP system without highlighting the
links with WIP, finished stocks, potential customer orders and subsequent
production plans.
• Links forecast with finished good stock, WIP and current raw
material stocks
• Allows long term capacity planning
• Can be run off-line to test options
• Recommends materials purchase if insufficient or can order
automatically
• Holds or links to data on suppliers, specifications and
financial/procurement system
• Recommends overall production to meet forecast orders or
actual orders
• Knows finished stock available to promise or how quickly it can
be available so orders can be accepted.
• Confirms ability to manufacture
• Although assumes infinite capacity, can hold rules on use by
dates for materials or process times for WIP
• Can link to specific scheduling tool e.g. movement through tank
farm or product mix/changeovers on packaging lines
• Updates daily or in real time
The most value of an MRP system is the integration with the main business
financial and Sales/Operations systems. The main advantage would be that
one set of data is used by everyone, subject to timeliness of data entry or
collection. The points below show where that is beneficial:-
• Values finished and materials stock, WIP
• Holds Duty status for various locations, possible labeling
implications
• Calculates losses, costs, material usages by Dept. and overall
• Allows overhead recovery allocation
• Product profitability, discount structures and trade sectors can be
analysed and evaluated
• Links costs and sales information for quotations/sales margin
calculation as part of overall Cost of Sales
One candidate identified the link with credit control to either release goods
for sale or for paying suppliers. Some candidates were clearly working in a
company with widespread use of the system.
Question 6
Describe the processes of employee recruitment from the identification of
the business need to appointment.
Within the answer identify any differences in approach for operational
team members, technical specialists (e.g. engineering or quality
technicians) and managers.
Eleven candidates attempted this question with five very good answers
gaining 20 out of 25 marks. The lowest mark was 13 where the candidate
appeared not to have allowed sufficient time.
The examiner was broadly seeking a description of the traditional approach
to recruitment with development of the following minimal points:
• Job description / specification
• Person spec – skills, experience, competencies, education,
training, personal qualities
• Remuneration package
• Attracting applicants – internal recruitment, job centres, special
recruitment agencies,
Executive search, national/local newspapers, journals, internet,
schools, word of mouth
• Advertising
Examiners Report 2012 13
 • Application forms – including any legislative requirements
• Who makes the decision?
• Selection techniques
o Interviews – preparing, conducting
o Practical tests
o Psychometric and psychological tests
o Assessment centres
• Making the decision
• The offer
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2012
Module 5 – Dissertation
General Comments
This is the third year of the dissertation format for Module 5, with ten
submissions (the same as 2011). Nine submissions achieved the required
50 % pass mark.
There were two dissertations that were awarded ‘Distinctions’, seven were
awarded ‘Pass’ grades, and one did not achieve the required standard.
The examiners were pleased with the dissertations received and again felt
that this format brings out capabilities not necessarily seen in traditional
written examinations or the original module 5 Case Study.
As in 2011, there were good examples of how attention to detail and often
quite simple, low cost solutions could make significant improvements to an
operation. A ‘Distinction’ submission from India on the topic of ‘reducing
the detrimental effect on beer flavour by yeast related sulphur
compounds’, included two very significant points that senior brewers and
managers should take note of:
'The importance of technological advancement and infrastructure cannot
be ignored but if the brewery does not focus on basic practices it will not
be possible for that brewery to improve’.
‘The biggest outcome of this project is that breweries not having such
good infrastructure participated equally well and showed an
improvement.’
This is a reference to the fact that throwing money at a problem will not
necessarily bring the desired solution, and that getting down on the plant
and paying attention to detail can often bring beneficial results without
significant cost.
Choice of topic - Having had three years experience in the new format, the
examiners would recommend that candidates choose topics in which they
can demonstrate a good grasp of brewing industry science and technology
within the scope of the IBD Master Brewer examination, and stay clear of
projects based on complex corporate initiatives. An example this year was
a submission on ‘The structured application of foundations and pillars of
World Class manufacturing’. This was very close to being a distinction
submission but was highly complex and was well in excess of the 10,000
word limit. With this type of project, it is difficult for the candidate to
demonstrate their personal contribution to the project. Another factor is
that complex corporate projects are rarely, if ever, completed in the six
month timescale allotted.
As in 2011 this year’s topics were very diverse, including beer stabilisation,
losses and extract improvement, setting up World Class manufacturing
structures and use of in-line instrumentation in the brewhouse.
Dissertation structure - It was pleasing to see that many candidates had
read and followed advice in the syllabus and last year’s examiner’s report,
and this made a significant contribution to their overall mark.
14 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
The differences in approach for operational team members, technical
specialists (e.g. engineering or quality technicians) and managers was
generally handled well. A number of candidates helpfully chose to use a
table to illustrate the differences.
Robin Cooper
The ‘Distinction’ standard submissions had followed the guidelines closely
and demonstrated a good understanding of their topic and a clear benefit to
their organisation. They also submitted a very balanced piece of work,
explaining the background and technological aspects at the high level
expected in the Master Brewer examination.
Submissions from candidates obtaining lower marks often lacked structure
and balance. The one candidate who failed this year, submitted a project,
which was useful and relevant to his sponsor, but was incomprehensible and
difficult to read in parts, and contained a lot of irrelevant mostly copied data
from manufacturers and text books.
Although most candidates had read and followed previous
recommendations, it would be useful to repeat advice from previous years
as to how a good submission should be structured.
Following the IBD guidelines, a dissertation should have the following
sections :
‘Abstract or Executive Summary’ - The inclusion of an Abstract or Executive
Summary has been recommended in previous reports. Most candidates,
who had read examiner’s reports, provided this and it gave an early and
brief insight into the overall project.
‘Background’ - This is a ‘scene setter’ and describes the situation and
context in which the project is carried out.
‘Purpose’ - The purpose of a project is ‘why’ it is being carried out. It can
nearly always be answered by ‘in order to ….’
‘Success criteria’ - This is a list of measures or actions which support the
‘purpose’ and can be used to demonstrate the degree of success of a
project. Success criteria generally include numerical measures. They can be
measures e.g. of efficiency (OEE), financial or improvements in quality. It is
good practice at the end of a project to review the outcome against the
proposed success criteria. For example, the original set success criteria
could be ‘to reduce the filtration loss in the brewery from 5% to 3% and the
project review would report what was actually achieved e.g. ‘the filtration
loss was reduced from 5% to 2.8%’.
‘Presentation of Results and Discussion’ - These sections are the most
important part of the dissertation and attract more marks than other
sections. It is therefore advisable to ensure the results are presented in an
easy to read and structured way. Results tables, graphs and comparisons -
where appropriate - against the project ‘success criteria’, are very beneficial.
A long list of descriptions such as: ‘the filtration loss was significantly
reduced’ is good to know, but submissions at Master Brewer level should
contain more detail, reporting in quantitive terms the size of the
improvement.
‘Assessment of how the project went’ - The better submissions described
what the candidate themselves could have done differently, and any
difficulties they had. The poorer submissions focused more on problems
outside their control.
‘Presentation’ - The general formatting of dissertations this year was good.
Most candidates kept their submissions to less than the maximum 10,000
words. Overly long submissions of greater than 10,000 words are likely to
be penalised, which could result in a candidate missing out on a distinction
award, or even at the other extreme, failing this module.
An aspect that is becoming more common as more general manufacturing.
management tools are used is the use of acronyms. One submission had
over thirty acronyms, the majority being from general management.
Frequent use of less commonly used acronyms makes scripts difficult to
read, even more so if they are not explained. The Examiner’s advice is by all
means use acronyms where relevant, define them and restrict their use if
possible to avoid submissions being over-laden with jargon and
‘management speak’.
Paul Buttrick and Richard Westwood
Examiners Report 2012 15
DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2012
Module 1 – Materials and Wort
The examination was sat by 287 candidates, compared with 261
candidates in 2011 and 244 in candidates in 2010. The pass rate for the
examination this year was 61%. This compares with a pass rate in 2011 of
52% and 2010 of 65%.
The grade distribution was as follows (2011 in parenthesis):
A: 1 % (2%)
B: 8% (8%)
C: 22% (18%)
D: 30% (24%)
E: 19% (22%)
F: 11% (16%)
G: 10% (10%)
Once again the examiners request that you number each question that
you have answered clearly in the examination booklet as well as marking
on the front of the examination booklet what questions were attempted,
for example, Q1, Q2 etc, in this way sections or parts of answers will not
get mixed up. It is of utmost importance for the candidate to indicate
clearly on the first page of the examination booklet the questions, in order,
that they have answered.
It is also better if the candidate starts each question on a fresh page, and
only on the pages indicated to write on. The very best candidates showed
an ability to write quickly, legibly and clearly, using diagrams that were
accurately labelled and or tables to enhance their answers. One troubling
trend noted once again was some candidates’ failure to recognize what the
question was asking. The examiners board spend countless hours in vetting
these questions to ensure that their meaning is clear, yet this problem
persists. There continues to be candidates that have difficulty in writing
legibly or coherently which does make it much more difficult for the
examiner to correctly assess their paper. In the case of those candidates
that were close to pass/fail this inability may have been an impediment to
receiving a passing grade.
Several candidates attempted all eight rather than the required six
questions. In these cases only the first six questions answered, in order, in
the answer book were marked. This is another clear example of the
candidates failing to read the question paper and apart from wasting time,
which could have been used to gain more marks, could have lead to better
question answers being ignored by the examiner.
There was a very wide range of marks between and within individual
papers and it clear that many candidates were just not prepared for an
examination at this level. In many cases the answers were at Foundation
level with the candidates appearing to use the revision notes as their only
source of knowledge.
There were also many instances of candidates apparently ‘question
spotting’ and not studying the full syllabus, with some very good answers
accompanied by some very poor answers. The examiners will continue to
cover the full syllabus in the question setting.
Question 1
Outline the operational stages involved in processing barley into malt,
starting from barley intake. Explain the main aims of each stage and
how these aims are achieved on an industrial scale [20].
This question was attempted by 272 candidates (94%) with 73% achieving
the pass mark. The majority of candidates did well in answering this
question although many of them forgot the important stages of barley
intake (i.e. cleaning and sizing) and subsequent storage and the
appropriate conditions. Some candidates spent valuable time providing
detailed drawing of a germinating barley kernel as well as the biochemistry
of malting rather than the operational stages, which was what the
examiner asked for.
16 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
At barley intake the barley must be mechanically cleaned of any extraneous
material including dust, stones, metal and foreign seeds and then sized. A
top paper would outline the systems used to achieve that as well as include
the reason for uniformity of the barley.
The aim of storage is to ensure the barley stays in condition until malted
through proper temperature and aeration.
In steeping the aim is to evenly hydrate the barley to 40 – 45% moisture
through a series of wet and dry cycles to initiate germination. A top paper
would identify further cleaning of barley is also a function of steeping. A brief
description of the process and the signal that the barley is ready to move to
germination was required for top marks.
In germination the major aim is to modify the barley, and those that
achieved top marks gave a brief description of modification. The examiner
expected a description of the germination process in provision of fully
humidified air to provide oxygen for the growing barley as well as removing
carbon dioxide. Also a reference to turning of the bed and the reasons for
that process was required to earn top marks.
The final stage kilning is characterized by three stages, fixed and forced
drying as well as curing. The aim is to slowly dry the malt to stop the
modification process, make the malt storable, and develop malts
characteristic flavour and colour while at the same time preserving the
enzymes developed during the malting process. Once again a top paper gave
a brief description of the airflow and temperature range for each of the
three processes.
Question 2
Describe briefly, with the aid of diagrams, the basic design and principles of
operation of two types of mill used in commercial brewing [8].
Discuss the inter-relationships that exist between the performance of
milling and wort separation systems and their combined impacts on wort
composition and brewhouse efficiency [12].
This question was attempted by 259 candidates (90%), with 65% achieving
the pass mark. To achieve passing marks the candidates had to describe the
workings and major features of a roller mill (2, 4, or 6 roller), hammer mill or
a wet mill. The candidate was expected to link the milling method with the
complementary wort separation system.
Diagrams were necessary to achieve top final marks. For example, for roller
milling an account of the gap sizing, sieving and fluting of the rollers was
expected with a brief description of the functioning. In terms of the hammer
mill candidates were expected to detail that the mill operated at very high
RPM using a series of articulated hammers attached to a central spindle
(some candidates had novel ideas of how the hammer mill worked) that
pulverises the malt to a size small enough to pass through a sized screen. The
system is reversible and produces very fine grist.
In part two several candidates gave detailed descriptions of wort separation
systems, but did not link back to the mill. The examiner expected a table
showing the grist composition of the various mills and a brief explanation as
to which wort separation method should be used and why. The answer
should also have included the brewhouse efficiencies achieved with different
mill types and wort separation methods as well as the merits of each system
towards beer flavour stability (i.e. lipids) and physical stability (polyphenols
and tannins).
Top candidates drew parallels between malt modification and mill process.
Question 3
Identify four parameters that can be used to define the “Degree of
Modification” of a malt sample. Briefly discuss their relevance and
outline the techniques used to measure them [8].
What are the most important requirements and specifications (list typical
numerical ranges for each parameter) for barley malt to be used for
brewing lager beer [12]?
This question, attempted by 246 candidates (85%) with 66% achieving the
pass mark, was generally answered well. Several candidates again spent
valuable time providing too much detail for the first part of the question. It
stands to reason that there are 2 marks allocated to each definition of
modification so a detailed discussion of the laboratory procedure is
unnecessary. Top papers also included the range for each parameter to
measure degree of modification for each of the four parameters identified.
The parameters included friability, cold water extract, fine-coarse
difference, soluble/total nitrogen ratio, acrospire length and calcofluor
determination.
In part two, several candidates wasted time detailing specifications for
both lager and ale, when the question quite clearly asked for only lager.
Several other candidates gave an accounting of the specifications for
barley, not for malt. The best answers used tables to list the specification
versus the range of each of those specifications. Those specifications
included: moisture, hot water extract, fine/coarse difference,
fermentability, total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen ratio, DMS, colour,
viscosity, DP, alpha amylase, friability and beta-glucan.
Question 4
Starting from the steeping process, describe in outline, how the
enzymatic activities of malting barley contribute to the production of
fermentable wort [12].
Describe briefly the control factors that the brewer can employ to
manipulate these enzymatic reactions in order to achieve the desired
wort composition [8].
This question was answered by 247 candidates (62%) with 52% achieving
the pass mark. This question was relatively poorly answered because –
once again - many of the candidates did not read the question. In the first
part, several gave a detailed description of water uptake in the barley
kernel and/or detailed descriptions of the malting process steps, but did
not touch upon the enzymatic activities. In the second part of the question
more than a few candidates detailed the control factors employed by the
maltster when the question quite clearly asks for control factors that the
brewer can employ.
In steeping, the barley kernel is hydrated to 45%, initiating the release of
gibberellic acid from the aleurone layer that stimulates the release and
production of a plethora of enzymes. The enzymes are broken down into
those that degrade cell walls (endo-beta-glucanase, endo-xylanase etc),
proteins (endo-peptidase, carboxy-peptidase, amino-peptidase and
dipeptidase) and starch (alpha-, beta- amylases, dextrinase). The enzymes
responsible for cell wall breakdown, act first exposing the endosperm
starch. These enzymes have the capability to reduce cell wall material to
simpler fermentable sugars. The protein degrading enzymes make the
starch further available for conversion and one of the degradation
products is free amino nitrogen, required by yeast to support
fermentation. Finally, in the mashing process the majority of the starch
conversion to fermentable sugars takes place, along with further cell wall
breakdown and protein degradation.
The brewer has many control factors that he can use to manipulate wort
composition. These include, time, temperature, pH, milling process (grist
ratio), mash concentration or thickness, the use of adjuncts and the
addition of exogenous enzymes. Top marks went to those candidates that
included a table that showed temperature and pH ranges for related mash
enzymes.
Question 5
Describe the production and use of the coloured and speciality malts, made
from barley, that are available to the brewer [10].
Describe the production and use of the adjuncts, which may be added at
the mashing stage without further processing in the brewhouse [10].
This question was attempted by 143 candidates (50%) with 86 (60%)
achieving a pass mark. This question and question seven were the least
popular questions although the pass mark was higher for this question.
The first part of the question was very specific only asking for coloured and
speciality malts made from barley but several candidates included malted
wheat. Many candidates also included a very detailed description of kilning
including the break point, much of which is irrelevant. The range of malts
listed by most candidates was very limited and often only included crystal
malt and a couple of others. It is obvious that this part of the syllabus is not
being covered by many of the candidates.
The second part of the question was also specific in identifying adjuncts
added at the mashing stage without further processing but many candidates
still covered the production of syrups together with descriptions of cereal
cooking in the brewhouse.
The answer to the first part should have covered the various coloured and
speciality malts available with a brief description of the production process
including times and temperatures and also a typical specification. The
following is a list of the various malts that could have been covered.
Coloured malts made by (i) varying the kilning temperature – White Malt,
Lager (Pils) Malt, Pale Ale Malt and Mild Malt, (ii) ‘stewing’ the green malt to
start producing sugars and amino acids and then finishing at a high
temperature either on a conventional kiln or in a drum roaster – Munich
Malt, Carapils and Crystal Malt and (iii) drum roasting of standard malts –
Vienna Malt, Amber Malt, Brown Malt, Chocolate Malt and Black Malt.
For Speciality malts the Examiners were looking for consideration of enzymic
malts (Dixons Enzymic Malt), acidic malts and Rauchmalz.
The answer to the second part of Q5 should have explained that some
cereals have a low enough gelatinisation temperature (barley and wheat) to
enable them to be added to the mash without pre treatment. These can
either be wet milled or added as externally milled flour.
Other adjuncts (maize, rice and sorghum) have a higher gelatinisation
temperature and need to be cooked separately unless they are processed
externally by, for example, flaking, torrefication or micronisation.
Question 6
Write an account of the chemical constituents of hops which give rise to
bitterness in beer [8].
List the main factors which affect hop utilisation efficiency and describe
their impacts [8].
Calculate the overall hop utilisation efficiency for the following example
[4].
a. Beer produced – 500 hL
b. Bitterness of beer - 24 IBU
c. Hops added into the kettle – 20 kg of 12 % alpha acid and
10 kg of 8 % alpha acid.
This question was attempted by 196 candidates (52%) with 103 (69%)
achieving a pass mark. This was not a popular question and the answers
were highly variable in quality with some very limited answers but also some
very high scoring answers. This poor performance is surprising as the
knowledge of hop chemistry is a core area of the syllabus.
Examiners Report 2012 17
Further it is suspected that the inclusion of a calculation may have put off
many candidates. Ironically at the exam setting meeting, there was a
discussion about the calculation being too simple. In practice about 40% of
candidates did not even attempt the calculation and overall only about
40% passed this part of the question! This is very disappointing and
demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge.
Many candidates also produced a very full answer on hop chemistry but
included many compounds that were irrelevant as they were not involved
in contributing bitterness to beer. This seems to be a case of candidates
producing a set piece answer even if it is not what is being asked for in the
question.
The section on factors affecting hop utilisation efficiency was on the whole
well answered with some very comprehensive answers but also some
answers, which were very limited.
The first part of the answer should have reviewed the hop chemistry of
humulone, cohumulone and adhumulone (alpha acids) and their
isomerisation to the bitter trans and cis forms (iso alpha acids). The role of
lupulone, colupulone and adlupulone (beta acids) and particularly their
bitter oxidation products should also have been covered.
The reduced hop extracts (e.g. Tetra) products should also have been
discussed, particularly the differing perceived bitterness of the various
types.
Representative chemical structures should have been included for
maximum marks, and finally the role of hop polyphenols should have been
mentioned.
For the second part of the answer the various factors which influence hop
utilisation should have been listed and this should have included the
impact made by each. A non-exhaustive list of items includes, boil time,
boil vigour, kettle design, temperature, hop rate, Ca2+ levels, Mg2+ levels,
type of hop product, wort gravity, wort pH, trub formation, and bitterness
level. Downstream processing should also have been mentioned such as
the fermentation system, yeast growth and cropping, foam production,
filtration, stabilisation and oxidation. The method of measuring the
bitterness would also have added value.
The calculation could have been completed in three lines with the weight
of iso alpha acid in the final beer (assuming that IBU is equivalent to
mg/litre of iso alpha acid), and also the weight of alpha acid added to the
brew being computed. The utilisation efficiency is then simply the ratio of
the two expressed as a percentage.
Question 7
Review the main equipment options available to the modern brewing
industry for wort boiling, and their effects on wort quality. Include the
relative merits of each system and diagrams as appropriate [20].
This question was attempted by 144 candidates (50%) with 59 (41%)
achieving a pass mark. This was the least popular question and also the
worst answered. Many of the answers were little more than the subject
matter covered in the General Certificate Examination revision notes and
did not describe the equipment options available to the ‘modern brewing
industry’, with only some candidates mentioning the Merlin and Stromboli
systems. At the Diploma examination level an exhaustive list is not
expected but at least some of the modern systems should have been
included.
The relative merits of the various systems were limited although diagrams
were included in most cases. The list although extensive could have
included – direct fired, jacketed vessel, jacketed vessel with mechanical
agitation, internal heating coil, internal heating coil fitted with a fountain,
external calandria of various types, Symphony (Briggs), Jetstar (Huppman),
Stromboli (Steinecker), Triton (Steinecker), Merlin (Steinecker), Ziemann
vacuum evaporation system, vapour recompression (TVR or MVR), vapour
condenser and PDX.
18 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Question 8
Write brief notes on the significance and process management of each of
the following topics related to malting and brewing (5 marks each) [20].
a. Dimethyl Sulphide.
b. Nitrosamines.
c. Colour development during wort boiling.
d. Oxygenation of wort prior to yeast pitching.
This question was attempted by 195 candidates (68%) with 95 (49%)
achieving a pass mark. This was a reasonably popular question although not
particularly well answered. It was obvious that the breadth of the question
was not popular with some of the candidates, and there were many
examples of this being the last question being attempted with only
incomplete answers.
The first part of the question on dimethyl sulphide was on the whole well
answered although many candidates did not include chemical structures.
Most included the production of DMS from SMM during kilning and boiling
and also the loss of the volatile DMS. The control of DMS levels by specifying
the SMM level in the malt, by varying the length of boil and whirlpool stands
should have been covered, as well as the enzymatic reduction by yeast and
bacteria of DMSO to DMS. The taste threshold level of DMS should also have
been included.
The section on Nitrosamines was the worst answered part of the question
with a large percentage of the candidates showing a complete lack of
knowledge of the subject. Some of the answers produced were however
highly imaginative if totally wrong! The answer should have covered the
health implications of nitrosamines and the legal limits. However, the volatile
nitrosamines, NDMA and the role of indirect kilning and pollution in their
formation were adequately covered by most candidates. The non-volatile N-
nitrosamine and the reason for the measurement of Apparent Total N-
nitrosamines ATNC due to the difficulty of direct measurement were not as
well answered. In considering the management of the risk, many candidates
covered the role of nitrates in the water but frequently did not mention the
importance of hygiene in the brewhouse.
The section on colour development during wort boiling was on the whole
well answered with caramelisation and the Maillard reactions being covered.
The oxidation of polyphenols was however often missed.
The answers on oxygenation of wort tended to cover the importance to the
yeast growth and health but were often limited in covering process
management. The typical oxygen levels required by different yeasts should
have been mentioned as well as the consequences of not achieving an
appropriate level. The relative levels capable of being achieved using air or
oxygen, as well as the solubility at different temperatures (Henry’s Law)
should have been covered. The means of injection – venturi systems, sinters
and the role of static mixers to ensure complete solubilisation - should also
have been included together with the importance of not producing foam in
the fermenter. The means of control by either monitoring the addition rate
using a mass flow meter and/or measuring the achieved level using a meter
should have been discussed. The point of addition should also have been
discussed with the various advantages/disadvantages of the hot or cold side
of the wort cooler being listed.
Robert McCaig and Ian Smith
DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2012

Module 2 – Yeast and Beer

In all there were 209 submitted scripts, which is slightly less than the 228 • Do mark up questions attempted on the front page and in the
marked in 2011. The step change established in 2009 where 161 scripts order answered. Also number your answers within the answer
were submitted, and in 2010 where 215 candidates sat the exam book. There was a decided improvement this year over the
continues. Similar to 2011, the module was covered by two examiners, a previous years.
common marking scheme agreed and the papers evenly split. In all 105 • Do write as legibly as you can. If it’s unreadable, marking is
candidates achieved a pass grade to give a pass rate of 50.2% - which is a difficult and will potentially miss things. Also don’t use liquid
very slight increase over the previous year. paper to manage corrections – a line through is good. We saw NO
liquid paper this year! Spelling is nice but by no means critical.
Analysis of the grades (Table 1) shows that in 2012 there were no overall • Do make an effort with drawings and schematics – use colour,
grades for an “A” pass mark and as well, B passes dropped from 5.3% to label legibly and use an appropriate scale. A question that
2.9% in 2012. There were however more passing marks this year in the C requires you to describe a “system” is ripe for this method.
range as compared to 2011. Also noted, less D and E marks were given. • Do manage your time – again this year, there were candidates
However, disappointingly the proportion of F and G marks increased to that answered questions brilliantly. However, since less than 6
29.6% from 25.6% in 2011. Again as in previous years, the split between questions were answered, regrettably all were unsuccessful in
pass and fail was similar with the exception of fewer scripts with the higher passing this examination.
marks of A and B passes – the majority of the candidates earning the ‘pass’ • Do add lists and tables if they add value – ensure they are
D grade. appropriate and contain enough appropriate content to support
the answer.
An analysis of questions that were answered and the corresponding pass • Don’t play “hunt” the question” with the Examiner. New
rate is provided in Table 2. Four questions (Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6) were question, new (right) page. The answer should be on successive
answered by 80% or more of the candidates, two (Q5, Q6) by 61-66% with pages not scattered haphazardly around the answer book.
Q7 and Q8 being least popular at respectively 57 and 48%. • Don’t begin your answer by writing the question out and please
don’t use a pencil to write your answers.
Total Percentage and • Don’t waffle, crack jokes or appeal to the Examiner to be kind,
Number Trend vs. last year
sympathetic etc.
Passed 105 50.2
Grade A good study strategy:
A 0 0.0 (down) 1. Be able to define the subject – what is it?
B 6 2.9 (down) 2. Be able to describe the subject – why is it important?
C 19 9.1 (down) 3. Be able to articulate methods to control or modify (the topic in
context) to understand the pro/con’s involved.
D 80 31.3 (up)
Questions and answers
Failed 104 49.8
As ever we provide some pointers for candidates, mentors and trainers.
Grade
E 42 20.1 (down) • The questions and answers are firmly based on the syllabus. The
F 38 18.2 (up) revision notes provide a firm grounding but understanding is key
G 24 11.4 (up) to success. Learning and then replaying them – especially when
Table 1: Overall pass/fail rates and grades irrespective of context – does not guarantee success.
• Reading around the subject can make a huge difference. Read
Question Answered by Passed by Passed % the popular brewing press (e.g. Brewing & Distilling International)
1 189 144 46.2 particularly the readable articles linked to Diploma content.
2 204 105 51.2
3 100 59 59.0 Question 1
4 180 89 49.4
5 138 42 30.4 i) Describe the formation of the two types of protein-tannin
6 173 44 25.4 haze [10]
7 119 26 21.8
8 128 60 46.9 ii) Write brief notes on ten (10) methods for preventing haze
Table 2: Performance by question formation [10]

Moderation
Of the 209 manuscripts, 47 at Grade boundaries were moderated with 35
gaining marks and 12 remaining unchanged.
‘Do’s and Don’ts’ for success in this (and other) examinations!
We think it is appropriate to add the same guidance to the candidates as
expressed last year with consideration given to reinforcing these good
habits. These are the “top tips” in the form of ‘do’s and don’ts.
• Do read the question, reflect on what is being asked and then
plan your answer. Mind mapping is helpful and, pleasingly,
increasingly used. This holds true again this year. More
candidates are successfully utilizing this approach.
• Do answer six questions.
The marks were evenly split between the five steps of haze formation in post
fermentation beer: oxidation, loose bonding to colloid, description of chill
haze and hydrogen bonding, and finally further aggregation via covalent
bonding to form insoluble/permanent haze. The second part of the question
was focused upon prevention. Candidates that could connect the
relationships between loading of precursors and or elimination of availability
through processing means/technology were awarded accordingly. Some
candidates included detailed descriptions of non-biological, and biological
hazes, which of course, were not required.
Comment – A basic understanding of physical stabilization was required with
a complete description of the physical and chemical events. Candidates who
could explain these systematic events en-route to eventual permanent haze
formation, and could describe preventative methods including material
selection, brewhouse practices and continuing throughout the process, did
exceedingly well. Define the what, describe how it is important, and
methods to prevent; a basic strategy to learning the applications of technical
knowledge.

Examiners Report 2012 19

As a passing comment, isinglass is not a chill stabilizing agent/method; it is
however utilized for primary clarification of yeast.
Question 2
i) Briefly describe the objectives of beer maturation [7]
ii) Describe the formation and reduction of diacetyl and the
factors that affect them [11]
iii) Outline one (1) novel strategy for reducing diacetyl [2]
Marks were evenly split with consideration given to reduction of yeast
concentration, carbonation, reduction of unwanted oxygen pick-up on
transfer/racking, purge/eliminate unwanted volatiles, precipitation of
precursors or appropriate treatment to manage chill haze, management of
VDK’s and finally, to fully attenuate wort to final specification. The second
part focused upon the timing and creation of precursors during the
attenuation process (related to yeast growth), emphasis upon the creation
of the intermediate pool with regard to valine (and iso-leucine as is the
case for 2,3-pentanedione) synthesis, their excretion and spontaneous
reduction via pH reduction, temperature and of course time/duration.
Candidates should also understand the re-assimilation process and
describe the two reductive steps requiring yeast metabolism. A note on
the requirement to have yeast in suspension during this process was
received well. The last part focused upon the candidates understanding of
practices not “normally” employed in a brewing process, but might be
utilized as an “alternative” method. These included the use of exogenous
enzymes, traditional yeast selection favouring lower production or higher
assimilation and the theoretical possibility of using “engineered” yeast
strains.
Comment – Some candidates included the discussions relative to
adjustment of colour and foam enhancing additives, which were not
required. It was surprising to review many scripts that contained nicely
outlined diagrams, which were strikingly similar (a good thing) without the
ability to fully discuss through the meaning of the diagram. Memorization
of the pathway is the start – a full understanding of the pathway is
demonstrated through articulation. It is also expected that candidates can
recall known flavour thresholds of these compounds as well as other
flavour compounds known in beer. A final note – the term “novel” means
new, different or not commonly utilized. Descriptions of the normal
process of reducing VDK levels through warm maturation are not “novel”.
Question 3
i) Describe the different procedures for the isolation of
microorganisms in the brewery [8]
ii) Give one example from each of the following groups of
microorganisms (Enterobacteria, Acetic acid bacteria,
Lactic acid bacteria and wild yeast). Describe their
damaging effects on beer quality and identify a medium
used to isolate them [12]
Marks were evenly distributed for an understanding of collection of liquid,
solid and surface samples in a quality management system and subsequent
“processing” of these samples on growth medium that then allows for the
detection/enumeration process. The second and third part was relatively
straightforward with evenly distributed marks, with many candidates
understanding the species involved, their damaging effects as well as
suitable medium used for the isolation/enumeration process, typically
employed in the brewery quality laboratory.
Comment – It was not intended and was not required to identify the
methods for enumeration or identification. Many candidates provided
excellent reviews of the technical identification processes including gram
staining, PCR, karyotyping etc. and technologies that were quite frankly
impressive, and unfortunately not achieving any marks. Understanding
the names of the relevant species and impacts was well answered; it was
however surprising that few candidates mentioned the connection
20 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
between the Enteric organisms and ATNC formation. This last part was well
answered by most candidates that attempted the question. However,
overall this question was “avoided” by a large majority of the candidates, but
when answered, it was answered well. This brings a point that must be
considered and left the examiners wanting – an understanding of
microbiology in the brewery is critical to the success of the brewery. While
we would not prefer to assume, one might think that avoidance
demonstrates a lack of confidence around the material.
Question 4
i) Outline the effect of wort oxygen on yeast physiology and
fermentation performance [10]
ii) Briefly describe the metabolic pathways in yeast that
produce higher alcohols and esters, and what strategies
are used to manage levels of these compounds [10]
Even distribution of marks awarded for the basics such as promotion of cell
replication, the role and creation of unsaturated lipids required connected
for cell replication, rate of attenuation related to biomass formation and
suppression of esterification. Additional marks (2) were awarded for
understating the effect upon SO2 formation, higher alcohols, pH reduction,
etc.
Comment – A great deal of the candidates note an “aerobic” phase of
fermentation, which is contrary to definition. Yeast in the condition of
fermentation are completely repressed by the array of sugars presented and
do not utilize oxygen to form ATP via respiration. Many candidates provided
a very detailed description identifying the steps involved in the EMP
pathway, which was not required. Good answers included the
understanding of nitrogen metabolism for primary production of the
intermediate pool as it relates directly to growth/replication and linked this
with the opposite when growth is repressed, resulting in esterification and
redox balance. It was appropriate to provide these pathways (the “what”),
and again discuss the steps and describe (the “why”) which were somewhat
less understood. Again, the key is “how do I control it?”
Question 5
i) Describe with the aid of diagrams a typical layout for a CIP
system in the fermentation cellar, including ancillary
equipment and monitoring devices [12]
ii) What parameters would be considered in a CIP process
audit [8]
Single and half marks were distributed across a well-developed diagram for a
re-use CIP system utilized in a fermentation cellar. Understanding was
expected in the context of a “fermenter” which requires venting and specific
requirements for CIP. This includes (i) monitoring processes, which would
include conductivity, pH, temperature, flow rates and (ii) piping design,
which would include dead leg prevention and flow rate requirements. It is
also expected that the candidates understand the typical concentrations of
detergents and sanitisers both in bulk tanks and ‘in use’.
Comment – This question was clearly disappointing which was unexpected.
A great deal of the candidates simply described a single use system. The
requirement for understanding CIP processes with more of a look at larger,
multi-use systems is clearly the standard. This again is akin, to the need to
understand brewing microbiology, which - as earlier stated - is fundamental
to operating a successful brewery.
Candidates at this level are expected to understand multi-purpose designs.
The second part which required candidates to demonstrate the fundamental
steps of how the CIP process works, as well as how to establish a baseline for
corrective action through effective auditing processes was answered to a
higher level of competence.
Question 6
i) Describe the mechanisms and conditions affecting
yeast flocculation [10]
ii) Write brief notes on methods available for removal of
yeast post fermentation [10]
Marks were evenly distributed for a complete description of the lectin
model and the role of ‘premature yeast flocculation’ as pertaining to
malt, sugar concentration, attenuated beer density and lastly to the
role of calcium ions. In the second part the marks were again evenly
distributed across an understanding of “methods” for yeast separation
including settling (as influenced by viscosity, temperature), the use of a
clarifier, powder filter and use of other less frequently seen methods
such as cross-flow and/or combined clarification and cross flow
filtration. The use of finings upon the action of yeast settling was also
expected.
Comments – Many candidates are confused at the exact differences
between flocculation and yeast settling and often used them both to
describe the first part of the question directly addressing flocculation.
Yeast flocculation is a phenomenon where yeast “clump” together
while clarification is the result of this attraction. The second part of the
question was overall well answered by a majority of the candidates
with clear diagrams and descriptions of these processes. Some
candidates also included the “pro’s and con’s” of each of the methods
which added to their ability to demonstrate their full understanding.
Question 7
i) Describe the mechanisms for the formation of
aldehydes that cause beer staling [10]
ii) What processes and practices in brewing,
fermentation, and beer processing areas can
impact on the long term flavour stability of bright
beer prior to packaging [10]
Marks were evenly distributed across the ability to describe the production
of reactive oxygen species through the Haber-Weiss/Fenton reactions. This
included an understanding of enzymic as well as non-enzymic mechanisms
and melanoidin degradation as it relates to heat abuse in the wort
production process. The second part was wholly devoted to the material and
process considerations that encourage or discourage the formation of
aldehydic off notes in beer. Minimisation of key components such as,
oxygen pickup, metal loading, mash in conditions (temperature and pH)
including hot-side aeration, tank and pump management, CO2 purity,
additions management, etc.
Comments – Surprisingly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding relating
to the development of flavour off-notes in beer. Most answers focus upon
the control of oxygen in the process post fermentation and neglect the
important contribution of the hot-side reactions. Descriptions of
microbiological, physical stability and packaging conditions were in some
cases included, which of course were irrelevant to the question. We would
encourage candidates to spend more time in this area of study, as longevity
in the marketplace as related to quality attributes of beer brands is critical to
a successful brewery.
Question 8
Describe the elements of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plan and
how would you create this quality system in your brewery [20]
A mark was afforded for a good description of how this is applied in a
brewery setting, with the remaining marks distributed across the nine steps
of establishing the protocols within a brewery. A short description of each
step was required – the “what” with a mention on the “how” attained full
marks.
Comments – In general candidates that obtained good overall scores for this
section were able to explain the approach required regarding food safety,
with complete description of the “why” as linked to implementation.
Descriptions of “safety” in general, not pertaining to food safety and general
accounts of various quality “tools” such as fishbone and pareto analyses
were not required, although important quality techniques within corrective
action protocols.
Tobin Eppard and Alastair Pringle

DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2012

Module 3 – Packaging and Process Technology

The Module 3 Examination was sat by 174 candidates, an increase on the Question Answered by: Passed by: Passed by %
144 candidates who sat in 2011. The pass rates, grades and details of 1 34 13 38.2
candidates’ performance on individual questions are shown in the tables
below. 2 157 115 73.2
3 162 139 85.8
Number of Candidates 174
4 31 19 61.3
Candidates % 5 133 108 81.2
Passed A 19 10.9 6 92 59 64.1
Grade B 29 16.7
C 45 25.9 7 94 53 56.4
D 28 16.0 8 90 53 58.9
Overall Pass 121 69.5 %
9 119 102 85.7
10 119 67 56.3
Failed E 33 19.0
Grade F 13 7.5 Table 2: Performance by Question
G 7 4.0
Overall Fail 53 30.5 % The overall pass rate of 69.5% was up on the previous year and it was most
encouraging to see the substantial increase in the Grade A passes with some
Table 1: Overall Pass/Fail Rates and Grades exceptionally good answers. Of the 53 candidates who failed the exam,

Examiners Report 2012 21

there were 20 candidates with Grade F and G Fails who showed a lack of
in-depth understanding of both packaging and engineering. I do question
the sense in entering for the examination with so little prospect of passing,
except perhaps to gain exam experience!
Candidates are expected to read the notes on the inside cover of the
Examination book and to follow the instructions given in these notes:
namely to start each question on a new page and to fill out the questions
answered on the front cover. All too often these instructions were ignored.
There were one or two candidates who tried to gain extra marks by
answering more than 6 questions, or by answering more than three
questions from either Section A or B. Neither of these are successful exam
strategies.
This year, most candidates who passed the exam achieved a good balance
between packaging and process technology, with only three candidates
failing the exam by achieving less than 35% in either Section A or B, but
with an overall mark of 45% or greater.
And so to the individual questions:
SECTION A – PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY
Question 1
Describe the operating principles and equipment for the on-line or in-line
measurement of the following parameters on a beer packaging line:
a. Dissolved Oxygen [4]
b. Dissolved Carbon Dioxide [4]
c. Alcohol content [4]
Outline the analytical techniques for the measurement of predicted shelf
life of small-pack beer (bottle or can) and its correlation with actual shelf
life. [8]
The question was really unpopular, being attempted by only 34
candidates, which is surprising since the three parameters, dissolved
oxygen (DO), CO2 and alcohol, are key for successful beer packaging. Shelf
life is also pretty important! Regrettably, the question was poorly
answered by most candidates, with only a 38% pass rate.
Since the question asked for in-line or on-line methods, the wet chemical
methods such as indigo-carmine for DO, caustic and manometers for CO2
and distillation for alcohol content were not relevant.
For DO, a description of either galvanic, polarographic or LDO techniques
was expected. Measurement of gas volume, temperature and pressure of
gas released under vacuum can be used with Henry’s Law to calculate CO2
content (Haffmans), but also by thermal conductivity after diffusion across
a membrane, or on release from a caustic sample (Corning blood gas
analyser).
There are several techniques for measurement of alcohol content such as
NIR, GC, density/sound or catalytic combustion (Scaba).
For all the above, it was not sufficient to say, for example “alcohol content
is measured by Anton Parr”. The question specifically asks for the
operating principle behind the operation of such machines.
A predictive measurement of shelf life (PSL) is important for peace of mind
that the product, just produced, will still be OK at the end of its stated
shelf life but also to identify batches which may fail prematurely, since
they can be either accelerated through the supply chain or in worst case
recalled. Methods for PSL include various temperature cycling regimes
(e.g. 0°C - 60°C etc.) or -8°C (Chapon Chill Test) to induce haze formation,
Other methods try to precipitate and measure one or other of the
potential components for haze formation – sensitive proteins, using tannic
acid or ammonium sulphate or polyphenols using PVPP. More recently,
electron spin resonance has been used to measure reducing
power/reductones and correlated with actual shelf life (ASL) since more
reducing power is thought to give longer shelf life.
For all PSL methods, it is essential to check how PSL and ASL correlate for
22 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
your beers and then to select or adjust methods to achieve the best fit.
Question 2
Sketch the flow layout of a flash pasteuriser and describe features in its
design, instrumentation, operation and maintenance that are essential to
guarantee integrity of the product. [10]
Explain how energy conservation can be incorporated into the design. [3]
Outline the effects on beer quality that can occur during flash
pasteurisation [4]
Pasteurisation units (PUs) are given by the equation:
PU = 1.3932(T – 60) x holding time.
Calculate the PUs applied by 20 seconds in a holding tube at 74°°C. How
does this compare with pasteurisation units typically applied to small pack
using a tunnel pasteuriser? [3]
This was a very popular question, with 157 of the 174 candidates having a
try, and pleasingly the success rate was high at 73%.
The diagrams of the flash pasteuriser were generally good except for a few
who drew the exit from the holding tube re-entering the steam/hot water
heating zone. Whilst many candidates noted that it was important to keep
the sterile beer pressure higher than the non-sterile beer pressure through
the regeneration zone in case of pinhole leaks on the plates, the means of
achieving this was omitted in many answers i.e. a pump.
Many candidates wasted time explaining the diagram. This was not asked
for and the time would have been better spent on explaining the features
that reduce the risks to product integrity. One such risk is CO2 breakout in
the hot zones and holding tubes and this Examiner has never been a fan of
the theory that bacteria can survive in hot CO2 bubbles. The reduction in
residence time, and hence PUs, due to gas breakout is much more
significant.
Energy recovery by regeneration was well covered and so too was the
calculation, except for a candidate who calculated over 2000 PUs without
noting that it might be too high.
The final part of the question was the least well answered. I expected
comment on why 74°C for 20 seconds would not work in a tunnel
pasteuriser. Breakage due to thermal shock and slow heat conduction into
the package requires the tunnel pasteuriser to work over a much longer
timeframe, say 20 minutes, but with a much lower temperature say 60 -
62°C to keep the PUs down.
Question 3
Listed below are undesirable qualities that can be introduced during the
processing of beer from filter outlet to filled product container – keg,
bottle or can. Stating the type of packaging line chosen, discuss ways in
which each of these undesirable qualities can be minimised.
Oxygen pick-up [4]
Loss of foam potential [4]
Variation in carbon dioxide level [4]
Particulate matter in the beer [4]
Variation in fill level/volume [4]
This was the most popular question answered by 162/174 and with a pass-
rate of almost 86%.
The question was not ambiguous in asking for the candidate to choose the
type of packaging line, so one or two candidates who decided to discuss all
three - bottle can and keg - were wasting valuable time and effort.
Several candidates used the word “proper” many times within their answer,
such as “proper pressure”, “proper temperature” etc. Simply put this is
too vague! If the pressure has to be balance pressure, or the temperature
in a range of 72 ± 0.2°C then say so.
It was also quite common in answers for high purity CO2 to be specified as
the blanket gas on bright beer tanks and sterile beer tanks. Whilst it might
be convenient to use a common supply for blanketing and carbonation,
blanketing does not require high purity gas provided tank residence times
are not excessive.
And finally the debate about the best place for CO2 injection – pre or post
chiller? Pre-chiller has the advantage of high turbulence and a dropping
temperature, which aids solution. Post-chiller has low temperature but
may require a device such as a ribbon mixer, with possible cleaning issues,
in order to achieve solution. Both received equal marks.
Question 4
Discuss the role of accumulation in the design and efficient operation of
a small-pack packaging line and, using a flow sketch of a typical
packaging line, show where accumulation would be incorporated [8]
Describe the types of accumulation equipment used for small-pack [2]
Define “Machine Effective Utilisation” (MEU) and “Machine Efficiency”
(ME) and explain how the data for their calculation can be collected [6]
Using the following data, calculate the daily MEU and ME [4]
Data:
Planned Time = one 8 hour shift per day
Rated line speed = 24,000 bottles per hour
Actual production in 8 hours = 96,000 bottles
Stoppages:
Breakdowns = 2 hours
Delays = 1 hour
Meal breaks, start-up and stop times = 0.5 hours
This question was clearly not liked; the least popular with only 31 of the
174 candidates attempting an answer but passed by 61% of the 31.
Most answers talked about the “V-graph” of machine speeds and how
accumulation can keep the slowest/most unreliable machines running for
longer. Better answers discussed the types of accumulation – dynamic and
static - describing wide multi-strand variable speed conveyors and
accumulation tables respectively with their respective advantages and
disadvantages.
Machine Effective Utilisation is the run time at standard relative to the
planned time whereas Machine Efficiency is run time at standard relative
to the machine run time. The allowable deductions such as size changes,
and meal breaks from planned time to arrive at machine run time varies
between companies and countries. Provided there was a consistent and
reasonable approach in both description and calculation of the MEU and
ME, the benefit was given.
For the calculation, run time at standard = 96,000/24,000 = 4 hours and if
planned time is 8 hours, MEU = 50%
To calculate the machine run time, the planned time is reduced by
subtracting “standard” stoppages due to meal breaks, size changes and
quality changes. Some will also deduct delay time, but it does depend on
the reason for the delay – no beer, no packages etc. It is not usual to
deduct breakdowns. So the machine efficiency would be either 4 * 100/(8
– 0.5) = 53.3% or 4 * 100 (8 – 0.5 – 1.0) = 61.5%.
The part of the question less well covered was the data collection in order
to arrive at figures for the calculation of key indices. Manual recording is
simple but onerous and small stoppages are often missed whereas
automated systems are good at data gathering, but less good at assigning
“cause” in order to acquire meaningful information from the data.
Question 5
With reference to their properties, marketing, legal and environmental
impacts, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of glass as a packaging
material for small-pack beer compared with PET, aluminium and steel.
[20]
This was a popular question with an 81% pass rate.
It was a straightforward question looking at the properties of the different
materials and their suitability for beer packaging. There is a range of
different package presentation from patch labeling to full wrap round labels
or shrink sleeves to the full surface printing for cans. The ease of recycling
and the degradation of the material vary between glass, PET and metals and
in some countries there are legal restraints on the use of non-returnable
packages.
In a number of answers, details on the raw material composition of glass
were given but not asked for and also there are quite a few candidates who
believe wrongly that beverage cans are made of stainless steel. Three-piece
cans were made from tinplated steel and the more recent two-piece cans
from aluminium.
SECTION B – PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
Question 6
Define the term “stainless steel” and outline the role of the alloying metals
in the composition of stainless steel [7]
Name the two most common stainless steels used in breweries and
compare their composition, relative cost, and resistance to corrosion. For
each steel, give an example of a typical equipment application, other than
hot liquor tanks [7]
Explain why the selection of a suitable material of construction for hot
liquor tanks can be difficult. Discuss the alternative materials that can be
used and the reasons for their choice [6]
Stainless steel is the most important construction material for brewery
plant, yet the grasp of this topic by many candidates is often sketchy, even
the definition of stainless steel – “a steel containing a minimum of 10%
chromium, and other alloying metals, that is resistant to corrosion due to
the presence of a passive surface film of chromium oxide”.
It was expected that at least 5 alloying metals would be mentioned due to
their importance in the formation and corrosion resistance of stainless steels
– namely chromium, nickel, carbon, molybdenum and titanium/niobium –
together with explanation of their role.
AISI 304 and 316 are by far the most common brewery stainless steels with
the latter having better corrosion resistance, and higher cost, due to its
molybdenum content. Low carbon versions 304L and 316L or Ti versions are
available with better resistance to weld decay.
Hot liquor tanks are a particularly challenging environment for stainless
steel, but there were few answers able to explain well the reasons – high
temperature (>60ºC), low oxygen level (passive film breakdown), scaling
possibly from hard water causing shielding and residual stress from
manufacture. Alternative materials that could be used are copper
(expensive), Duplex steels which are an austenite/ferrite mix, cast iron but
not now recommended since it is weak and can crack, and lastly plastics
such as polypropylene or fibreglass( possible taints and strength at high
temperature?).
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) was mentioned by most candidates as the
biggest drawback of austenitic stainless steel. SCC occurs when stress in the
material, either residual from manufacture, or induced by operating
conditions, with high temperatures >60ºC and under corrosive conditions
usually from chlorides leads to pit corrosion that propagates into cracks
across the material.
Examiners Report 2012 23
Question 7
Discuss the relevance of Reynold’s Number in defining the flow regime
and velocity profile in pipes, and in the calculation of pressure loss [7]
Explain how pipes and channels of non-circular cross section can be
accommodated when calculating Reynold’s Number [2]
Sketch a characteristic curve (head versus volume flow rate) for a
centrifugal pump and include on the sketch the operating curve for the
system in which this pump is installed. Indicate the pump’s operating
point [3]
Calculate the pressure increase required by a pump, and its power
requirement in kW to move beer of density 1010 kg m3 from an open
fermenter through a 75 mm diameter pipe at 2 m s-1 into the bottom of a
maturation tank, which has an applied top pressure of 0.5 x 105 Pa.
The pump is 3m below the minimum beer level in the fermenter and the
maximum height of the beer surface in the maturation tank above the
pump is 30m. Pump efficiency is 50%, friction losses are 0.3 x 105 Pa and
the gravitational constant is 9.81 m s-2 [8]
Having explained the terms in Reynolds number and that Re is a
dimensionless number, it was expected that candidates would use
diagrams to explain the significance of the Reynolds number to velocity
profiles for laminar and turbulent flow. A few candidates still get confused
about which is which. Better answers related the centre line (max) velocity
to the average velocity or gave the equation for the profile.
Most were able also to quote the Fanning friction equation and to show
how, when Re< 2,000 (laminar flow) there is a linear relationship between
the Fanning Friction Factor and Re, but for turbulent flow, Re> 4,000, a
graph of Friction factor against Re and the relative roughness e/d can be
used. Few candidates could remember the equivalent diameter for non-
circular cross section channels as 4 x cross sectional area/wetted
perimeter although a few very competent answers gave examples of
equivalent diameter for square, rectangular and even annular ducts.
The pump characteristic curve was mostly well drawn and annotated.
There was a lack of rigour and a lack of a systematic approach to the
calculation in many answers. The Bernoulli equation (conservation of
energy equation) is an energy balance between two points in the system
and this needs to be defined as the system boundary. For this calculation,
these are logically the liquid surface at the fermenter outlet and the beer
surface in the maturation vessel. Any assumptions, such as the kinetic
energy terms being negligible, need to be clearly stated and not just
ignored or dropped from the equation without comment.
The question asked for the pump power in kW in order to assess if
candidates could recall that the pressure (340, 539 Pa) is multiplied by the
volumetric flowrate (0.0088 m3 s-1) to arrive at the required pumping
power as 3076 watts. After applying the 50% efficiency factor, the power
input to the pump needs to be 6,152 W or 6.152 kW.
Question 8
Discuss the merits of stainless steel versus copper as suitable heating
surface materials for use in wort boiling [6]
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of internal and external
calandrias for wort boiling [6]
Using the data below, calculate the heat loss by convection, and by
radiation from a wort kettle to its surroundings during a 90 minute boil,
assuming that the external surface temperature of the kettle is at wort
boiling temperature [8]
Data: Surface area of the kettle = 50 m2
Wort boiling temperature = 103°°C
Temperature of the surroundings = 20°°C
24 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Outside film heat transfer coefficient = 10 W m-2 K-1
Emmissivity of the kettle surface = 0.65
Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
This question was answered by only a third of candidates, which was
surprising since the 8 marks for the calculation part were easy pickings in a
very straightforward question.
Stainless steel is a very poor conductor of heat compared with copper (16 W
m-1K-1 Compared to 400 W m-1K-1) but it has a further disadvantage in its
non-wettability.
Most candidates were able to explain the significance of this related to film
versus nucleate boiling with the latter being the preferred mode in wort
boiling. Better answers also compared the materials for strength, hardness,
weldability and ductility.
The internal calandria has lower capital cost, no heat losses, no pumping
costs and low shear but its big disadvantage when compared with external
calandrias is its physically restricted heat transfer area. For the same heating
rate, if the heat transfer area is reduced then the ∆T has to be increased by
the equation Q = U x A x ∆T. This can cause excessive burn-on and fouling of
the heat transfer surface and the need for more frequent cleans. There are
also the disadvantages of a delay in starting the boil until the tubes are
covered, and the need for a caustic soak to thoroughly clean the surfaces.
The external calandria scores well on low ∆T, hence fewer cleans, easier to
maintain and modify, flexible for varying wort volumes and with a tangential
wort return it can become a kettle/whirlpool. On the downside, pumping is
required during heat-up until thermosyphoning starts and heat losses unless
the unit is well insulated.
The calculation of heat loss required use of Qc = U x A x ∆T to arrive at a
convection heat loss of 41500 W and use of QR = ε x σ x A x (T14 – T24) to
calculate the radiation heat loss as 23250 W, remembering that Kelvin must
be used for the temperatures, T1 and T2 in radiation. The total heat loss is
64750 W (J s-1). This heat loss occurs for 90 minutes (5400 seconds) so
multiplying the heat loss by 5400 and dividing by 1,000 twice gives an
answer of 350 MJ. Alternatively, 64.750 kW applied for 1.5 hours gives an
answer of 97.125 kWh – both answers were accepted.
Question 9
Sketch a pressure-enthalpy diagram for water/steam and use the sketch to
show the following:
• Dry saturated steam
• Wet steam
• Dryness fraction
• Superheated steam
• Sensible heat
• Latent heat [7]
Calculate from the following data the enthalpy of wet steam at a dryness
fraction of 0.6 and explain why this wet steam is not ideal for use in the
brewery:-
Enthalpy of water at 100°°C = 418 kJ kg-1
Enthalpy of dry saturated steam at 100°°C = 2675 kJ kg-1 [2]
Using the data below, calculate the energy required to raise the contents
of a cereal cooker to 100°°C. Calculate also the weight of steam required if
dry saturated steam is used as heating medium and it is condensing in the
heating jacket at 120°°C [8]
Data:
Cereal charge = 5 tonnes at 20°°C
Cereal specific heat = 1.65 kJ kg-1 K-1
Mash water charge = 10 tonnes at 60°°C
Mash water specific heat = 4.18 kJ kg-1 K-1
Latent heat of dry saturated steam at 120°°C = 2201.6 kJ kg-1
Of the 68% of candidates who attempted this question, 86% passed and it
was well answered.
The advantages of steam as a heating media in the brewery are that it has
a high latent heat released at convenient temperatures, it has a very high
film heat transfer coefficient as condensing steam, it is non-toxic, easily
distributed and from a cheap and (typically) plentiful raw material - water.
It can provide motive power as well as heat and wet steam is very effective
at killing microorganisms.
The pressure-enthalpy diagrams were generally well drawn, but failure to
annotate the axes had marks deducted. The marking of the required
parameters onto the diagram was less well executed.
The enthalpy calculation should have yielded an answer of 1772.2 kJ/kg
but quite a few forgot to add on the 418 kJ/kg of sensible heat after
calculating the latent heat at a 0.6 dryness fraction.
Wet steam is not ideal for use in the brewery due to condensation in
mains and equipment, the risk of water hammer and a lower enthalpy
than dry steam.
The final part required the application of Q = m x cp x ∆T to the water and
cereal components to calculate the total heat required (2,332,000 kJ) and
dividing by the latent heat of steam to give an answer of 1059 kg. Students
should be familiar with the SI units used in all exam calculations, even if in
their own country they are using other units so that confusion between
tons and tonnes for example does not occur and they know that 1 tonne =
1,000 kg.
Question 10
Explain with reference to the relevant physical principles, how the level
of carbonation in beer is affected by temperature and pressure [5]
Describe three different methods by which the carbonation level of beer
can be deliberately increased and compare the advantages and
disadvantages of each method [9]
Explain how CO2 super-saturation can occur in draught beer systems and
its impact on beer dispense [6]
This popular question was poorly answered with a pass rate of just over
56%.
The main failures in the first part of the question was explaining the
behaviour of gaseous CO2 in response to changes in temperature and
pressure using Boyle’s Law, Charles’s law, Gay-Lussac’s Law, the combined
or ideal gas laws, individually or in combination – all of which was
irrelevant to the question. The question is about the solution of CO2 into
beer and the influence of temperature and pressure on its solubility. So
answers that gave Henry’s Law and the variation of Henry’s constant with
temperature and pressure, either by explanation or graphically scored
well. The rate of carbonation is proportional to the volumetric mass
transfer coefficient, the area of transfer and the concentration driving
force and an additional mark was awarded for quoting this.
The three methods of carbonation were generally well known, but there
was a lot of variation in explanation of each method and their advantages
and disadvantages.
The available methods are top pressure, carbonation stone, venturi
carbonator, membrane transfer and blending high and low carbonated
beers.
The part of this question that was most poorly answered was the final part
on super-saturation. There was considerable confusion between super-
saturation and over-carbonation. Over-carbonation occurs if the beer
exceeds its CO2 specification due to the application onto the beer of a CO2
pressure greater than its equilibrium pressure at a particular temperature.
Super-saturation occurs when the pressure on a beer is reduced, or the
beer temperature is increased, so that the applied pressure on the beer is
less than its equilibrium pressure at that temperature. This can occur on
beer that is in-specification and is a great benefit in beer dispense; giving
the beer in glass its effervescence and foam renewal. However it must be
avoided in the dispense lines from keg to glass by the application of a
pressure greater than equilibrium so that excessive fobbing does not
occur.
Brian Eaton
Examiners Report 2012 25
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2012
Module 1 – Materials and Fermentable Wort
Cereal Option
There were 17 candidates who all scored well in the General MCQ Section
A (average score 20 out of 30 marks). As in previous years the cereal
questions were scored very highly but this year there was a better spread
of correct answers in the grape and molasses sections. The improved
results in Section A were offset by extremely poor marks in Section B with
an average score of only 54% over the 4 selected questions. The scores for
individual questions ranged from only 30% to 67% and only 5 of the 17
candidates passed in all four of their selected questions, indicating that
certain parts of the curriculum are not being adequately studied and
understood.
In particular, most candidates had difficulty in evaluating and interpreting
facts and data in order to make judgements on the process and quality
issues which can arise in distilleries (this will be discussed more fully in the
reports on individual questions). Purely descriptive answers to questions
on raw material processing, distillery plant and analytical techniques are
insufficient at this level. Most of the questions asked for follow up
discussion and judgements on the advantages and disadvantages of
various options for the production and quality control of cereal wort and it
was in this area that most candidates were found wanting. Consequently,
3 candidates failed Section B despite having adequate scores in Section A
and therefore cannot be awarded a pass in this module.
Once again a plea has to be made for candidates to read and understand
the questions. When asked to list a number of options and then evaluate
the pros and cons of each there is no point in writing several pages
describing only one and then failing to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of that option. Similarly, there are apparently still some
candidates who cannot differentiate between malting barley and malted
barley!
Question 1
Name four factors, which diminish the quality of barley intended for
malt distilling. Describe, giving examples, the effect each of these
factors can have on the analytical parameters of finished malt and on
the distillery performance of that malt. (20 marks)
This question was answered by 16 of the 17 candidates with an average
score of 11 and only 4 failures.
Most candidates made the correct selection from high nitrogen barley,
thin barley with low Thousand Corn Weight, low germinability, excessive
dormancy, high storage moisture leading to microbial infestation or
damaged grain with broken corns. The best answers to this part also
included the circumstances, such as weather conditions during growth and
harvesting, which can lead to poorer quality barley having to be malted.
However, very few were able to follow up a good start by describing, in
terms of malt analysis, the outcome of having to malt such barley or what
the consequences would be if this quality of malt had to be processed in a
distillery.
What was really required was an indication of extract losses of about 0.5%
for every 0.1% increase in nitrogen and equivalent yield losses for thin
barley. Several candidates went on to describe how thin barley can be
used for high DP malt in grain distilling whereas the question specifically
specified barley for malt distilling – yet another example of failure to read
the question. There were several good answers on how poor storage
conditions can lead to impaired germination but failure to describe how
homogeneity and friability tests were specifically developed to detect this
defect in malt. Likewise there were only one or two descriptions of the
effect of unmalted grain on wort viscosity, run-off and extract losses.
On the plus side some candidates selected wrong barley variety as a factor
but once again failed to discuss the possibility of admixture of feed and
malting varieties and its consequence in malt quality and distillery yield.
26 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Overall, failures to adequately answer the two secondary parts of this
question lead to the generally low score – the highest mark being only 15.
Question 2
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of malting in
(a) A separate steeping, germination and kilning plant,
(b) Combined steeping and germination vessels (SGV’s) with a separate
kiln and
(c) A single steeping, germination and kilning vessels (SGKV’s) (20marks)
This being a specialist malting question it was only answered by six
candidates, two of whom failed. Nevertheless there was one excellent score
of 18/20 but the average was still only 11 marks.
With one exception the common failing was inability to evaluate the pros
and cons of each malting system. There were some good descriptions and
sketches of each type of plant but once again purely descriptive answers
were not asked for.
The advantages of better plant utilisation, better hygiene and better water
utilisation/lower effluent disposal costs when using separate vessels had to
be balanced against higher construction costs (including grain transfer
machinery and energy costs) and generally higher maintenance costs. The
best answer demonstrated how these disadvantages can be obviated by a
vertical tower configuration and using gravity for transfer between vessels.
The cheaper construction costs and faster throughput of an SGV with a
separate energy efficient kiln should have been contradicted by poorer
water utilisation/effluent costs and high green malt transfer costs.
Similarly, the advantages of the overlapping of steeping, germination and
kilning with no transfers in an SGKV had to be discussed with the
disadvantages of poor hygiene, high water costs and inefficient kilning.
Question 3
Give an account of the development and evolution of malt mashing and
extraction plant over the last 50 years and discuss the effects these
developments have had on distillery performance. (20 marks)
This question was selected by 12 candidates and was the best answered in
the examination with only one failure and an average score of 13 marks.
There were good descriptions of the evolution from traditional mash tuns
with bottom driven mixing paddles through “semi-lautering” rakes and
sparge-ring fittings to full shallow bed lauters and then to mash filters which
have only recently been introduced to the distilling industry. The increase in
mashing efficiency, fermentable extract and spirit yield were the most
commonly stated effects but only the better answers quantified these. For
example several candidates related these increases in extract yield to
equivalent laboratory analyses in that traditional mash-tuns could barely
yield an IBD coarse-grind extract whereas the latest lauter-tuns and mash
filters can now exceed IBD fine-grind. Similarly faster lautering improves
secondary conversion and better fermentabilty leading to higher spirit
yields. The best answers also included a discussion on the effect “bright”
filtered worts, versus “cloudy” mash-tun worts, have had on fermentation
and hence on spirit quality. Another aspect which was well treated was the
intergration of IPC with mash-tun development leading to better hygiene
and lower effluent costs.
Question 4
Describe the options available to a grain whisky distiller for processing
unmalted cereals prior to fermentation and evaluate the advantages and
disadvantages of each option (20 marks).
Question 4 was answered by 11 of the 17 candidates and was failed by two
of them. The average mark was 12.
There were only one or two good answers giving a list of all the process
options from choice of cereal through options for whole grain versus
roller/hammer-milling, pre- cooked slurry treatment with enzymes, batch
versus continuous cooking, to choices for cooked cereal conversion to
fermentable sugars and wort separation versus all-grains-in. The most
astute, and highest scoring, candidate was the only one to realise that the
Diploma in Distilling is now an international qualification and is no longer
exclusive to Scotch whisky distillers. Consequently, there is the option to
use either malt or microbial enzymes for pre- and post-cooker treatments,
as long as it is specified that malt enzymes can only be used in Scotch
whisky production.
The most disappointing results were from candidates who could only
describe one or two of these options and who also failed to discuss their
advantages or disadvantages. The better answers on the other hand not
only gave a wider selection of options but also included an evaluation of
process energy costs and yield efficiency.
The two failures were both very similar in that they did not read and
understand that the significant word in the question was “options” and not
“processing”. They both gave excellent descriptions of how a batch and a
continuous cooker worked, with detailed drawings, but nothing else.
Question 5
Give a detailed account of the sourcing and the quality requirements of a
production water supply for a distillery which produces both whisky and
neutral spirit. (20 marks)
There were 11 responses to this question with 9 reasonably good passes
and only 2 failures. The average score was 12 marks.
All the expected advantages and disadvantages for private borehole or
surface water supplies over treated mains water were adequately
described. The increasingly common practice for grain distilleries to install
water treatment plant was also well documented. This being an essentially
descriptive question, it did not suffer as much from poor interpretation as
the others.
Question 6
Describe in detail three commonly used laboratory techniques for
assessing the modification of malted barley and discuss the specific
reasons why all three methods may appear in a malt specification (20
marks).
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2012
Module 1 – Materials and Fermentable Wort
Molasses Option
The module 1 molasses option examination was sat by 4 candidates and
pleasingly all passed with three at grade A and one at grade B. The
multiple choice section results showed a good level of understanding of
the sections on non-molasses and knowledge of the wider spirits industry.
The lowest marks on this part of the exam was (the lack of) knowledge of
grape derived spirits. For the written questions, most candidates gave
answers that showed very good levels of knowledge of the subject and all
candidates did supply the level of detail required to
This was one of the most popular choices but the answers were shockingly
bad. There were only 2 good results out of the four passes while 2
candidates out of the 8 failures could not justify even a single mark. The
average score of only 6 marks speaks for itself.
There were good descriptions of a whole range of different malt analyses
but very few people knew which related to malt modification and how to
interpret the results. Despite the clearly stated request for three indices for
the modification of malt, one poor soul even provided three analytical
specifications for the supply of malting barley.
What should have been a straight forward description of fine/coarse extract
difference, friability/homogeneity and soluble nitrogen ratio (SNR) followed
by a discussion on the different aspects of malt modification that each
portrays, there appeared to be absolutely no understanding of the reasons
why these measures are used in specifying malt quality. To make matters
worse there was a similar lack of understanding of the wrong answers which
ranged from measurement of DP and DU, fermentability and fermentable
extract to the aforementioned barley analysis.
What was required was an explanation of why the measurement of
fine/coarse extract difference, which is the standard for commercial
specification, is not sensitive enough to reveal some modification defects
which can only be detected by the less precise measurement of friability.
Similarly adequately friable malt may still have a large proportion of hard
grits which can often be revealed by measurement of SNR, especially when
dealing with higher nitrogen barley. Such barley is often over modified at
the frontal end of the grain but with under modified “hard- ends” at the
distal. It is therefore important to examine these grits not just for broken
corns and whole ungerminated grain, when assessing homogeneity, but also
for visibly unmodified ends. Homogeneity was therefore understood
reasonably well with respect to unmalted grain and ungerminated broken
corns, but less well so with respect to “hard-ends” as described above.
Uneven modification of this type also requires interpretation of both the
soluble N and total N parts of the ratio since very high SN from the
overmodified parts can often be out of proportion to TN so giving a ratio
which on its own may indicate over modification. These then are the
reasons why all three modification indices may appear in malt specifications
and why they have to be in balance.
There is no obvious reason why this apparently straightforward question
was so badly answered. Perhaps the available teaching materials, which all
contain good descriptions of these methods of malt analysis, may be
deficient in explaining why they are used and why they must be interpreted
in conjunction with one another.
Whatever the reason, some good descriptive answers to the methods of
analysis were spoiled by abject failure in understanding their meaning.
George Bathgate
achieve good marks at the diploma level. Due to the disappointingly low
number of candidates the following does not detail the number attempting
each question.
Question 1
Describe, the agronomics, processing, yield and molasses quality of sugar
cane in tropical and sub-tropical regions.
Examiners Report 2012 27
The average mark was 18. All candidates gave satisfactory answers.
Candidates covered the areas outlined in the question. The main area
where marks were dropped was a low level of detail on molasses quality.
Question 2
Discuss the need to measure and describe a technique used to
determine, Total sugar as invert TSAI, Total sugar as Sucrose TSAS,
Acidity, Nitrogen, Dry matter content.
The average mark scored was 14.5. In general the answers were good but
was the lowest score of all the 6 questions. This question should be
straightforward for diploma candidates but it was disappointing that the
part asking for the need to measure the parameter was poorly answered.
Question 3
Discuss the different sources of molasses supply for the distiller of the
following in terms of geographical spread, Sugar Beet, Sugar Palm, Citrus
Pulp and Sweet Sorghum (syrup).
Briefly discuss the key reasons for a distiller wishing to use each of the
above.
The average mark was 18.8. All candidates gave very good answers and
this question had the highest average. The answers covered all the
molasses types mentioned in the question. Part two was also answered
very well showing the candidates had a good overall knowledge of the
molasses based spirit industry.
Question 4
Discuss molasses pre-treatment in relation to the need to prevent
equipment damage, ensure fermentation efficiency and reduce microbial
activity.
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2012
Module 2 – Fermentation, Distillation and Maturation
Fourteen candidates sat Module 2 and 10 passed, 2 at grade A, 3 at B, 1 at
C and 4 at D. Both the 71.4% pass rate and the average mark 54.5% -
thanks to the increased number of A and B passes - showed substantial
improvement on recent years. The average would have been well within
grade C had it not been for several very low fail marks. Although other
faults also occurred, to be explained in my comments on specific
questions, one reason for these failures was the lack of sufficient relevant
information. Many answers of the poorer scripts occupied less than one
page. Answering each question is intended to require 30 minutes of effort,
admittedly partly in thought as well as writing. I am reluctant to
recommend a specific number of pages, since some questions can be
answered well in more compact form than others, e.g. by tabular rather
than essay presentation. However, it is seldom possible to complete a
high-scoring answer in one page or less; it is more likely that there is some
other aspect, which has not yet occurred to you. On the other hand, a 4-
page answer is not guaranteed a high mark. As mentioned on many
occasions in the past, no marks are awarded for irrelevant information
that does not answer the question, even if it is factually correct.
The examination paper carried the advice "in questions 1 and 3, answers
are expected to refer to all three of cereal, grape and molasses spirits".
Although part of the Module 1 paper has been multi-disciplinary for
several years, this is the first time Module 2 candidates have been asked to
show some knowledge of all three. However, there was no reason for
panic, the instruction was just intended to test candidates' knowledge of
the fermentable sugars of all three substrates (Q3) and encourage some
mention of the yeasts of "natural" fermentations (Q1).
28 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
This question had an average score of 15.2. The answers to this question
were mixed with some very good answers and some borderline. This
question asked the candidate to exhibit not only a level of knowledge but to
expand this into how this impacts on the process. Good answers cleared
stated the pre treatment stages and then the major and minor impacts on
each process activity.
Question 5
Sketch a flow diagram of the process of converting sugar cane to raw sugar
and molasses. Briefly describe each step in the flow diagram making
reference to the need for process and its impact on the quality of the
molasses produced.
The average mark for this question was 15.3. The answers were a mixture of
very good and borderline. This was surprising, as candidates who work in
the molasses spirit industry should have no problem describing the process
of how molasses is made from sugar cane. Marks were lost by some
candidates for not showing how each step of the process related to each
other.
Question 6
Discuss the selection of yeasts available to the rum distiller. Describe the
method of use and their role along with that of bacteria in the production
of Light and Heavy rums
The average score of 17.7 reflects that most candidates supplied good
answers. This question was again one that is a fundamental requirement of
people who work in the molasses spirit industry. The role of yeast was very
well answered and the few marks lost were where information on the role
of bacteria was not provided in the detail required.
Douglas Murray
Question 1
Give a brief account of the classification of the genus Saccharomyces, and
explain how in laboratory practice cultured distillery yeast can be
differentiated from the various wild Saccharomyces species which can
occur in distillery fermentations [20]
Since only 2 candidates answered this question, I can offer only general
comments. The genus Saccharomyces is recognised by its fermentation
activity and multilateral budding, so obviously an explanation of these
features was required. In laboratory tests both culture and wild strains of S.
cerevisiae ferment glucose, sucrose and maltose, therefore additional tests
that are necessary to distinguish strains should have been described.
Although it would be unreasonable to expect a complete list of possible
tests, at least some (e.g. DNA fingerprinting) had to be mentioned. The final
sentence of the question referred to Saccharomyces species other than S.
cerevisiae, distinguished mainly by different sugar fermentation patterns.
Given their occurrence in some "natural" fermentations of grape musts and
molasses worts, brief mention of at least one example was a reasonable
expectation.
Question 2
Why is pyruvate such an important intermediate in yeast metabolism and
in the production of flavour congeners during distillery fermentations?
[20]
This question was much more popular, answered by 9 candidates. Given the
importance of the Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas pathway in anaerobic energy
generation, at least a brief comment was expected on the role of EMP and
conversion of its end product pyruvate to acetaldehyde and ethanol.
I had hoped that answers would also discuss the importance of pyruvate in
biosynthetic activity with reference to both the yeast itself (new cell
material) and the distiller (flavour congener by-products such as higher
alcohols, diacetyl and esters). Most answers gave reasonable to excellent
accounts of two of these aspects, with commendable biochemical detail,
but few considered the metabolic welfare of the yeast. Nevertheless 7
passes were achieved, and several very good answers contributed to an
average mark of 11.6/20.
Question 3
Name the fermentable sugars, which are present in cereal wort, grape
must and molasses. Give an account of the mechanism by which each of
these sugars is absorbed by distillery strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
from the must/wort and incorporated into the metabolic activity of the
yeast. [20]
I was surprised that 4 of the 12 candidates who attempted this question
did not realise that they were expected to specify the composition of each
of the three worts individually. Instead, they wrote a single list of sugars
with no indication of which substrate each came from. However, I was
pleased that some of the others gave not only names but also typical
concentrations.
Most of the answer should have concerned sugar transport into the yeast
cell. Surprisingly few provided the textbook diagram of the cell wall and
membrane, the former the site of hydrolysis of sucrose and raffinose
(particularly relevant to molasses) and the latter, "permease" enzymes.
Also, many failed to explain adequately the distinction between facilitated
diffusion, e.g. of fructose and glucose at high concentration in wort, and
active energy-requiring transport of maltose, maltotriose and
maltotetraose, involving phosphorylation.
The one aspect of transport, which most candidates described in detail,
was the sequential uptake of the sugars of cereal wort, unfortunately a
relatively small part of the expected answer. So marks for this question
were very varied. All but one of the 6 who passed provided really good
answers, but the average mark was only a disappointing 9.8/20, i.e. in the
lower half of grade D. By a slight margin this was the worst of the module.
Question 4
Give an account of the properties and activities of a typical
detergent/sanitiser preparation for fermentation vessels and associated
equipment, and explain how each named component fulfils these
requirements. [15]
Briefly describe one method to confirm the effectiveness of the
sanitisation procedure. [5]
I do not understand why so many candidates misunderstood the question
and gave excellent but irrelevant descriptions of the layout and operation
of CIP equipment. For an explanation of the activities of detergents and
sanitisers a brief account of the CIP system sufficed, if offered at all.
Wetting, chemical action on soil, dispersion, suspension and rinsing were
the expected topics for the detergent section. Information was required
on named components with these activities, and a chemical explanation of
mode of action if appropriate. The expression "sanitiser preparation" was
intended to direct discussion to chemical agents so, despite its excellent
bactericidal and fungicidal activity and wide use, saturated steam was not
strictly appropriate. However, comparison of steam vs. a chemical agent,
e.g. peracetic acid, appeared in some of the better discussions of meeting
process requirements, and was regarded favourably.
Most answers provided competent explanations of confirmation of
sanitisation, usually either bioluminescence, e.g. on swab samples, or
traditional microbiology on rinse drainage. But the majority of marks were
supposed to come from the poorly answered first part, so 6 failed and
despite excellent answers by 6 of the 7 passes the average mark was only
10.2/20.
Question 5
Explain the meaning of “balanced” and “unbalanced” batch distillation and
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each [10]
Describe the procedure for batch distillation with three stills, and explain
how the resulting spirit and final rum or whisky would differ from those
produced from the same batch of beer/wash in a two-still system [10]
There are some interesting differences between the two common strategies
for "balanced" distillation with consistent spirit-still charge; (a) the beer
(wash) and spirit stills operating together over the same period of time, and
(b) two beer/wash distillations during each run of the spirit still. So I hoped
for both versions to be mentioned. That seldom happened, but there were
some good answers on 1:1 operation. The word balanced refers to the
linked times of still operation, but in reality the concept is consistency. Few
candidates thought to point out that truly balanced operation requires a
consistent charge to the beer/wash still (e.g. original and final SG values) and
consistent spirit still cut points to produce the same spirit. Perhaps because
almost all recommended starting the next spirit distillation as soon as the
still was available, thus maximising the efficiency of expensive plant. In a
small distillery with only one pair of stills, the resulting variation in low wines
and feints content of each spirit still charge causes significant variation in
congener composition in the spirit, but in a larger distillery the mixed
product from several overlapping unbalanced distillations is more consistent.
It could take most of the 15 minutes allocated to the second half of the
question to explain the operation, including cut points and recycling, of the
beer/wash, intermediate and spirit stills of one example of triple distillation.
However, most candidates found time to explain also that the triple-distilled
spirit is “lighter” than double because of the additional rectification, three
rather than two contacts with copper still surfaces giving greater removal of
sulphur congeners, and the greater dilution of stronger spirit to down 40 or
43% further reducing congener levels. Unfortunately, the marks for question
5 gave another average of 10.2/20, not surprising since only 7 of the 13
answers were passes. Although these passes included four very competent
answers, yet again I have to ask why so many Diploma in Distilling candidates
fail the one question in the paper on batch distillation?
Question 6
Describe a typical procedure for starting and stopping a named type of
continuous still for potable spirit production. Include an explanation of
how maximum recovery of in-specification spirit is achieved during both
procedures. State the type of still: standard, Barbet or Coffey. [20]
In contrast, the continuous distillation question produced by far the highest
average mark of the module, comfortably within grade B. The quality of the
answers suggested that most of the 11 candidates who chose this question
were familiar with both theory and practice of the relevant procedures.
Although there was one marginal fail, there were also four excellent marks
among the passes, giving a commendable Grade B average of 13.7/20.
If I had been answering the question myself I would have explained ‘stop’
first, and I was interested to see that many candidates also chose that easier
approach. First, change the beer/wash feed to water, collect spirit for as
long as possible, but when no longer within specification collect as "cold
feints" until all ethanol is distilled off. Then turn off the steam and
condenser water, and collect the remaining alcohol content of the rectifier
as "hot feints". Details of the ‘start’ procedure vary anyway between
different types of still, and even for one particular type it is possible to start
on either warm water or diluted hot feints before changing to production
beer/wash with normal supplementary cold and hot feints. A description of
one procedure was an acceptable answer. However, it was also important to
explain the importance of temperature control in various parts of the
system, and that the distillate is collected as cold feints (for subsequent
recycling) until within specification as spirit.
All 14 candidates answered the maturation question, which 12 passed,
producing an average mark of 11.9/20, but the middle of grade C is not
brilliant for such an important aspect of potable spirit production. Marks
ranged from 20/20, due in part to generous and accurate provision of
Examiners Report 2012 29
chemical formulae, to well below pass level. The words “generation” and
“removal” were intended to guide candidates toward discussion of
additive/productive and subtractive/reductive reactions respectively.
Candidates were expected to define and give at least one example of each.
That expectation was fulfilled very well in most answers, although there
were a few instances of digressing into irrelevant detail, e.g. cooperage
procedures.
Question 7
Describe the principal reactions taking place during maturation of
potable spirits in oak casks, giving examples of generation and removal
of named compounds. [20]
On to sensory assessment: of the examples for discussion, only brandy,
rum, whisky, and similar matured spirits have the complexity to justify
scoring by the intensity of aroma/flavour, e.g. measured on a numerical
scale and recorded as a spider diagram. Vodka and new continuous spirit,
with their low congener content, are best assessed by e.g. 3-glass
comparison with a standard, which would detect an out-of-specification
sample (and perhaps help identify a faulty congener?) Unfortunately, both
parts of this composite question from two different sections of the
syllabus proved to be outwith the theoretical knowledge and practical
experience of several candidates. Even basic sensory panel procedure - an
important part of the answer - was very poorly explained by these
individuals. So the 10 answers scored a wide range of marks, giving a
disappointing average of only 10.0/20 and only 6 passes
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2012
Module 3 – Process Technology
Twenty candidates sat the Mod 3 examination and the average mark was
56.3%. 15 passed (2*A; 6*B; 3*C and 4*D) giving a pass rate of 75% which
is down on last year’s 83.3%. Two of the five fails were only a few marks
off a “D” pass and should therefore seek to emulate Bruce’s spider! The
remaining three were seriously deficient in knowledge suggesting that
they had presented themselves or been encouraged to present themselves
without adequate preparation or support.
Whilst many candidates possessed good knowledge and replied well I
regret that I must repeat Iain Campbell’s comment of last year in that
again “some candidates showed a shocking lack of knowledge of some
basic aspects of process technology”.
If I might make some general comments about tackling this or other
papers in the future;
Read the instructions and questions. One candidate attempted all eight
questions while others did not list which questions they had attempted.
Manage your time strictly. It is always going to be way more difficult to
get a pass mark if you don’t even attempt the last question.
Show your working. If you show intermediate steps and then go wrong, or
make a keying error, you will get partial credit. Not so, if it has all been
done on a calculator and only the answer written down.
Drawing diagrams. If the question asks for a diagram don’t do something
the size of a postage stamp! And although we’re not expecting technical
drawing standard, a ruler may be of help.
30 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Question 8
Outline the procedures for purification of crude continuous-distilled spirit
to the quality specification for vodka. [8]
Describe the procedures for sensory assessment of new-make continuous-
distilled spirit, purified vodka and an oak-matured spirit beverage, with a
brief explanation why different methods are required for each type of
potable spirit. [12]
Taken literally, the first part of the question required only a description of
how hydro-selective purification and carbon treatment of vodka were
carried out, but it should have been obvious that at least a brief explanation
of why was also appropriate. Only the best answers discussed why they
were necessary, but a surprising number of candidates were obviously
unfamiliar with these processes anyway.
In my introductory comments I criticised the lack of relevant information in
the poorer answers. I cannot be sure whether that showed lack of
knowledge, or just poor examination technique. The latter was certainly a
problem: yet again I have to complain that a common fault was not
providing the information specifically requested in the question, whether by
accidental misunderstanding or deliberate digression into a topic that the
candidate would have preferred. However, all failed candidates gave at
least one answer well within the pass range, so their problem may be
insufficient breadth of knowledge to deal with the whole syllabus, which
they can correct for a future attempt.
Iain Campbell
Question 1
i) With the aid of a drawing of a pot spirit still, explain the key factors,
which will affect reflux and heat, transfer. [8]
ii) Describe alternative arrangements for condensing spirit vapour from
such a spirit still including the implications for energy recovery. [4]
iii) Comment on the impact of these variables (i and ii above) on spirit
quality. [4]
iv) Using the equation Q = εσA (T14 – T24) and assuming a still temperature
of 80°C and an ambient temperature of 20°C, how much heat will 1 m2 of
still surface radiate if its emissivity is 0.5 ?
Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4 [4]
All candidates attempted this question and all but two passed it, many with
high marks. The average was 13.1.
i) I expected issues such as copper and its characteristics; shape, surface
area, height of still, lyne arm and orientation, surface area, charge level,
ambient stillhouse temperature etc.
Heat transfer includes heat applied to the still as well as factors influencing
emissivity so I expected a mention of rate of heating.
The best answers also mentioned still thickness, the boiling characteristics of
copper versus stainless steel, purifiers, Lomond stills and the convection and
radiation equations.
ii) Worm versus condenser was expected and also the difference between
low-grade heat and usable hot water. The best answers referenced split
condensers or thermocompression.
iii) Copper influence of both stills and coolers and its effect on producing
light/heavy spirit.
iv) The need to use degrees Kelvin and failure to show intermediate
working reduced some candidates’ marks in this section.
Question 2
i) Draw a continuous distillation system for the production of a named
potable spirit, labeling parameters including strengths, temperatures and
component flows. [10]
ii) Give a detailed drawing of the spirit off-take plate for the above still,
explaining the purpose of all of its features. [5]
iii) What is the temperature of the spirit leaving the cooler in the
following example?
Spirit condensate at 94.5% alcohol by volume (91.7% by weight) and 78°C
flows from a still at 2000 litres h-1 into a counter current paraflow cooler.
The cooling water enters at 15°C and leaves at 50°C. Water flow is 1500
litres h-1.
Density of 94.5% abv = 0.81 kg l-1
Specific heat of water = 4.2 kJ kg-1 K-1
Specific heat of ethanol = 2.4 kJ kg-1 K-1 [5]
All but one candidate attempted this question, but the fact that almost
half (9) did not achieve a pass mark suggests to me that many candidates
are less comfortable with continuous distillation apparatus than pot stills.
Unfortunately for them, it is not a Malt Distilling Diploma qualification they
seek to attain. It is important, that by study, visits or coaching they get up
to speed in this area and I would hope that their employers would give
them any necessary support. The average was 10.1.
i) Most candidates managed to produce a Coffey twin column outline.
After that there was a wide range of marks scored depending on detail.
Some omitted to mention which product was being produced (“Read the
question”). Many omitted the slightest details regarding plates, liquid and
vapour flows, and also temperatures and strengths.
ii) Coils, reflux, perforated plates and downcomers or similar all scored
marks. For full marks I was looking for some reference to temperature
monitoring, offtake control valve, strength monitoring and a weir
arrangement to keep a constant head to the offtake.
iii) A simple calculation with the correct answer only achieved correctly by
about a quarter of candidates. The wrong answers tended to result from
those who believed the spirit flow was 100% ethanol or those who also
didn’t apply a density adjustment to the spirit flow.
Question 3
Describe, with the help of annotated diagrams and stating approximate
moisture levels:
i) A physical method of dewatering either stillage/spent wash from a
continuous still or draff or similar residues from a mashing process. [6]
ii) A specific (named) evaporator system for concentrating stillage to
syrup, and [8]
iii) a type of drier for producing dried animal feed (e.g. “Dark Grains”)
from distilling residues.
(State the raw material/distilled product which relates to your answers)
[6]
This was a straightforward opportunity to show awareness of by-product
material processing. 17 candidates attempted this question and 10 passed.
The average mark was 9.2.
i) A screw press or decanter were most commonly given, although a belt
filter was also acceptable as would be a filter press. Generally well answered
with varying detail and draughtsmanship.
ii) Multiple effect evaporators and/or Mechanical Vapour Recompression
were the obvious answers. Again varying levels of detail and confidence
about the description of its operation.
iii) Most chose the Rotadisc drier though a couple described a drum drier.
One candidate chose a spray drier, which was also a valid alternative.
Puzzlingly a couple of unacceptable answers repeated the option for i)
namely a decanter centrifuge.
Question 4
The base of a mash tun (or must/wort collection vessel) is 2m above a
pump, which discharges at the top of a washback/fermentation vessel, 7 m
above the pump.
i) Determine the suction, discharge and total heads (given in metres of
water) and illustrate them on a simple diagram of the system. Ignore
frictional and fitting losses of any pipes or coolers, and only consider
hydrostatic heads.
Wort density = 1050 kg m-3; g = 9.81m s-2 [12]
ii) If the capacity of the pump under the conditions stipulated is 0.1 m3 s-1
determine the pumping power and the electrical power drawn by the
pump if the pump efficiency is 70%. [8]
8 candidates attempted this question. There were 2 very good marks, 3
other passes and 3 poor fails. The average mark was 10.4.
It was a very quick way to make marks for those who understood the basic
concepts of pumps, gravity and power. I am somewhat concerned that so
many avoided tackling it.
Question 5
i) Discuss the various alternative materials of construction, which have
been used in distilleries, identifying their positive and negative features.
Give examples of where they might best be employed, and why. [15]
ii) Explain the factors, which require to be considered when applying
insulation systems in a distillery, including any potentially negative effects.
[5]
Every candidate attempted this question and 18 passed. This was the
highest scoring question of the paper with an average mark of 13.5.
The first part gave candidates an opportunity to share awareness of wood,
copper stainless and other steels. Aesthetics, quality considerations,
durability, heat transfer, ease of construction, low maintenance etc.
Generally this was a well done question.
The second part sought the differing considerations for hot and cold
insulations and the “deleterious effects” part was looking for information on
Chloride Stress Corrosion. Mostly adequately done.
Question 6
i) Using diagrams compare the principles of, and difference between, feed-
back and feed-forward control. Give a typical example of each. [10]
ii) Explain, relating to a typical application, both ratio and cascade control
[5]
iii) The equation relating to a constriction in a pipe is
Examiners Report 2012 31

Referencing a simple diagram, explain what each factor is, and state its SI
units where appropriate. [5]
Only 7 candidates attempted this question making it the least popular
option. Of these 4 passed, 2 of who got almost full marks. The average
score was 11.6.
The first two parts were straightforward process control concepts.
The third part did not ask for an equation to be derived or applied but
merely that its factors and units be identified.
As with Q4, I am concerned that so many gave it a miss!
Question7
i) Starting with bulk spirit, and giving diagrams of key equipment, state
the steps and processes required to prepare a named spirit beverage for
bottling. [12]
ii) Explain the key components of a typical refrigeration plant, including
reference to the refrigeration cycle using a Mollier chart. [8]
14 candidates attempted this question and 9 passed, many with
respectable scores. The average mark was 11.3.
The first part of the question was an opportunity to show knowledge
about spirit preparation. Again the product should have been named but
this was not always done so. Obviously, depending on product, coarse
filtration, chill filtration, colouring, and strength adjustment should be
detailed. Diagrams were requested and obviously, given the number of
marks at stake, there was an expectation of reasonable drawings.
32 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
The second part asked for an explanation of the refrigeration cycle and a
Mollier chart. Generally adequately done though a couple of candidates
interpreted this as an opportunity to explain a CO2 recovery plant which was
not requested and thus gained them no marks.
Question 8
What are the implications of an ethanol leak in the stillhouse? State the
further information you require, the factors, which you should be
considering, and the options and courses of action which are open to you
in dealing with the situation. [20]
Safety must always be to the forefront when considering process
operations. This question was answered by 13 candidates with 9 passing.
The average score was 11.5.
Not surprisingly, with such an open ended question, the answers were
probably the most diverse of the paper, reflecting no doubt the experience
and organisations each candidate worked for.
I was looking primarily for a demonstration of common sense. How big a
leak? A drip or a vessel rupture? What material, feints or spirit? At what
likely strength? At what point in the distillation or production cycle, if
appropriate? Even whether the plant was operational at the time.
Also, how many people were in the vicinity? Clearing any visitors out
immediately would be legitimate, though I don’t think anyone mentioned
this.
I was looking for a logical approach to a given situation and many answers
reflected that, including sensible assessments and ameliorative actions such
as opening stillhouse windows to improve ventilation.
Further knowledge of the explosivity of ethanol/air mixtures would be
helpful.
Several showed highly proceduralised approaches, which is good if time
allows. I was particularly pleased with those who mentioned the
downstream impact on effluent treatment operation due to the extra BOD
load.
Alan G Wolstenholme
DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING EXAMINATION
2012
This year saw the introduction of the new format of the syllabus for
Module 1, with the continuation of the old syllabus on Modules 2 and 3.
A significant increase in the number of candidates in Module 1 saw 38
candidates sit the exams, with 33 of these passing (87%).
Module 2 only had 2 candidates this year, with both successfully
completing the module.
Module 3 had 9 candidates sit the exam, with 7 of these passing (78%).
In general the standard of assignments improved during the examination
year, which was pleasing as it meant that candidates were taking the
examiners feedback from previous assignments into account for their
following submissions.
In general the breadth of knowledge of the syllabus was higher across
most units this year, which meant that candidates generally scored higher
in the short answer section of the examination.
However the detailed knowledge required for the long answer questions
was lacking in a number of the submissions. Candidates do need to have a
broader knowledge base than purely what is written in the learning
material, and the examiners would strongly recommend the candidates to
review externally published articles and materials as part of their study.
Overall 6 candidates gained the full Diploma in Packaging qualification
during the year.
Ruth Bromley
Module 1:
Unit 1 – Packaging Theory and Materials
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate had a good
understanding of packaging material specifications, their impact on
performance and the role of the supplier.
Without naming your supplier, select a packaging material that you are
currently experiencing issues with, either through quality or service.
Document the key elements of the material standards and specifications
and explain how these are incorporated into the procurement process.
Identify the key issues you have with the supply of this material, along
with your recommendations for improvement. Explain how any changes
to the specifications will be managed through the relationship with the
supplier.
Provide an overview of how you evaluate suppliers’ capability and
performance, and on what frequency this is done.
39 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
16, with the range of scores from 6 to 25.
This assignment was split into three parts – with candidates providing
differing standards of answers to each section. For the first part, a
significant number of candidates purely provided appendices containing
their actual material specification, without any reference to which parts of
this were the key elements of the standards or why these were important.
There was also very limited information as to how the material standards
and specifications were then built in to the procurement process – with a
significant number of candidates selecting to provide information
regarding to the call-off procedure – which was not part of the question.
Better submissions provided a general explanation of the material (and its
main use) and then went on to provide an overview of the specification
and material standards, before then picking out the key parts of these and
then explaining the rationale behind why these were the key elements e.g.
market demand, environmental or legal issues, cost factors, production
demand, local sourcing etc. Candidates were then expected to provide an
explanation on how these factors were then integrated into the
procurement of the material – with the most comprehensive answer
covering how these factors could either be traded against other areas of the
specification, or potentially used to incentivise the supplier based on line
performance, for example.
The second part of the question, which related to material performance,
was generally very well answered – as this is obviously something which the
candidates have more experience of. Answers covered line monitoring and
material tracking, with some of the best answers even using graphs and
photographs to help support their explanations. Sadly, the latter part of this
question generally received weaker answers, with some candidates simply
stating that it was “a supplier’s responsibility to improve!” For this section,
the examiner was looking for the candidates to explain how any fault or
issue identification process could then follow through into the discussions
with the supplier around potential improvements – potentially in terms of
base material, quality of production, specification tolerances or even
material storage and handling details.
The final part of the question generally received quite theoretical
descriptions of supplier monitoring systems, with only a few candidates
being able to describe a true Supplier Performance Management system –
and how it works in practice. For this section the candidates should have
been able to explain how either different monitoring systems can be used
with different suppliers, or how the same system can be used with differing
alert levels depending on the criticality of the material to the production site
or company. Supplier review meetings – and their agenda and frequency –
should also have been included, along with details of how actions are
documented, reviewed and closed out. Fully functional Supplier Review
systems also provide the ability for companies to focus on specific areas
with a restricted group of “preferred” suppliers, and in this case, these
suppliers can also be far more closely linked e.g. through involvement in
partnership operations, product development and innovation as well as co-
location of production sites where applicable.
Short Answer Questions
38 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 21, with the
scores ranging from 12 to 31.
This section of the exam saw a marked improvement from previous years,
with a much broader knowledge of the syllabus being demonstrated
through the candidate answers. Questions which received a lower than
average score generally related to bulk packaging materials e.g. kegs and
spears. It should be noted that whilst the rest of Module 1 does have a
small packaging focus, this unit does cover all packaging materials. In
general candidates were more conversant with those questions, which
reflected their normal operations and interactions on the packaging line.
Those questions which referred more to material production at a supplier
level also received fewer correct answers – even though this is an equally
valid area of the syllabus, which is perhaps reflective of a lack of candidates
covering external references and reading material during their studies for
the exam.
Long Answer Questions
1. Describe the technical and marketing functions of [20]
packaging materials.
For the marketing functions, explain how these will [6]
differ between small pack and large pack products.
Provide definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary [9]
packaging materials. Give examples of materials for
each type of material for both returnable and non-
returnable packaging.
Examiners Report 2012 33
17 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
12 – 29 and an average score of 19.
The first part of this questions produced answers which were of a more
varied standard. The use of the word “describe” encourages the candidate
to look at the different aspects of each function and explain what is does,
how it does it and why it is so. Some candidates provided very detailed
answers and gave thorough examples for both functions, whilst others
selected a simple list and was therefore lacking in significant detail.
Very few answers identified differences between the contribution of large
pack and small pack materials to marketing. This topic should have flagged
the fact that small pack materials are far more visible to the consumer, and
can be used to carry a brand based design or message directly to the
consumer. With large pack materials, their marketing function is far more
limited and is directed more at product identification than product
marketing – and so can be far more basic. This means that additional
marketing materials are required at the point of dispense, where the
consumer is in a position to make a choice.
Most candidates provided good descriptions of the primary, secondary &
tertiary materials and also provided the correct identification for the
materials requested. As a result it was this section which helped underpin
the marks for a significant number of candidates.
2. With the use of a flow diagram, describe the [25]
processes for the manufacture of a two piece can
body from metal coil through to a pallet of finished
cans ready for despatch to the brewery.
List 5 advantages and 5 disadvantages of a can [10]
compared with other primary packaging materials.
21 candidates chose to answer this question with varying results. Marks
ranged from 9 to 31 but with an average score of 22, this showed that the
majority of candidates demonstrated a good level of knowledge of the can
making process.
The most comprehensive answers started with a well labelled flow
diagram of the process, with candidates then using this as a reference
point for their descriptions of the process. This approach helped the
candidate to cover each of the sections in order – although in some cases,
the detail behind the stage was sometimes more limited. Overall most
candidates provided a very theoretical approach to the question which -
demonstrated only their knowledge to learn the material provided in the
learning notes - and they were therefore unable to broaden their answers
to the full scope of the production expected by the question. The better
answers covered the production, quality assurance and checking processes
at each stage. The majority of candidates lost marks at the end where
they failed to palletise the finish cans, and explain how these were
prepared for transport.
For the second part of the question, most candidates chose to compare a
can with a bottle – perhaps the most obvious choice - although some of
the better answers used multiple materials whilst identifying their
differences. Candidates must take care when making general statements
e.g. “cans are more decorated than other primary packaging materials” as
labels are also classed within primary materials and so all options must be
considered.
Ruth Bromley
Module 1: (new syllabus)
Unit 2 – Beer Preparation
Thirty seven candidates completed the assignment and examination this
year, plus one candidate granted RPL exemption. Overall, the standard was
acceptable, although some candidates clearly perform better with
assignments than with more formal examinations. Several candidates also
showed poor time management in the written examination and failed to
allow sufficient time for the long answer question; since both short answer
34 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
and long answer sections of the exam paper carry 35 marks, it makes sense
to allow the same time for answering both sections (nominally 30 minutes
each).
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidates had a good
understanding of beer handling procedures from Maturation/Cold Storage
through Bright Beer to transfer to Packing and the potential impact on beer
quality parameters and production cost control.
Conduct an in-depth evaluation of your brewery’s filtration, beer handling
and all transfer processes, systems and procedures (up to transfer to
Packaging filler).
Identify three key opportunities for improvement in the areas of waste
control (including beer losses), dissolved oxygen pick-up, transfer and
handling, and other related product quality implications for packaging.
Of the 37 submissions, 23 achieved a rating of good, 6 were satisfactory, 6
were weak and 2 were poor; several dissertations were exceptionally good.
Candidates obtaining good marks produced clear, well thought through
answers with good descriptions (including relevant process flow diagrams)
of appropriate plant with good evaluations of areas of risk. The better
candidates provided excellent discussions of current performance and
identified potential practical improvement opportunities, whilst those rated
as satisfactory answers usually fell short of the higher standard by
suggesting less practical process improvements. Weaker answers just did
not address all aspects of the project or skimped/missed out relevant
details.
The poor submissions clearly misinterpreted the requirements or just
quoted sections of IBD revision notes. The examiner was looking for quality
dissertations that clearly reflected not only the candidates’ knowledge, but
also the attainment of sound practical understanding of the relevant plant
and its operating procedures and the potential and real impact on beer
quality and production cost control.
Short Answer Questions
Twenty three of the 37 candidates attempting this paper achieved more
than 50%. In the main, questions on brewing and filtration procedures,
including dissolved oxygen control were well answered, but, as in previous
years and somewhat worryingly, far too many candidates failed to answer
adequately several of the questions relating to pasteurization theory.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Describe the basic principles of operation of powder filters [10]
used for clarifying beer.
Describe, in outline only, the basic principles of design of 3 [25]
different powder filters available for the production of
bright beer and briefly compare their relative merits.
Fourteen of the candidates selected this question (38%), with one providing
an exceptionally good answer, with 3 good answers, 2 satisfactory, but the
remaining 8 not achieving an acceptable mark (mainly due to not allowing
sufficient time).
In the first section, the examiner required a description of the basic
principles of beer filtration, i.e. the separation of solids and liquids by
passage through a partition, with the driving force for the liquid to be
filtered being the pressure difference across the filter, and this pressure
gradient being a result of the frictional drag of the fluid as it passes through
the filter medium and the accumulating solids - all as defined by Darcy’s
Law. A description of powder filtration principles – depth and depth plus
absorption, depending on the powder used, with descriptions of the
powders available (Kieselguhr (DE), perlite, silica hydrogel, cellulose). The
operation requires
support or septum, pre-coat (maybe x 2), bodyfeed, plus details of
relevant/relative grades; typical dosage rates (40 – 120 g/hl); automation
of dose rate depending on measured (turbidity meter) solids content and
particle size of incoming beer. The second section required descriptions of
three filter types (perhaps with outline diagrams),including Plate & Frame,
Candle, Horizontal Leaf and Vertical Leaf (either horizontal tank or vertical
tank). Details could have included:
Plate & Frame: very “forgiving”, robust, excellent particle removal (high
contact time), high throughput, high flow rate and little powder let by (if
support sheets remain intact). However on the negative side, large
footprint, labour intensive (opening and washing off), high water usage,
large beer/water interface, susceptible to pressure shocks and cannot be
automated successfully.
Horizontal Leaf: small footprint; easily fully automated, good throughput,
not susceptible to pressure shocks (powder sits on top of plates), rapid
discharge of spent powder and use of “Durafil” plates as the filter screen
obviates the need for precoat. However there are multiple moving parts
and seals, high power use for driving discharge motor, lower capacity per
volume filtered (since powder is on one side of screen), very expensive
service costs to replace seals, damaged screens, etc.
Candle: simple operation, very small footprint, no moving parts, easily
automated, easy discharge of spent powder slurry by backwashing, small
tank volume (beer losses reduced), if use wire-wound candles – very little
powder leakage and produce consistent bright beer. However very
susceptible to pressure shocks, disastrous consequences of even slightly
overloading with powder, higher last runnings volume than Plate & Frame
or horizontal leaf, due to “dead” volume of cone (but less problem if HG
brewing with dilution post-filter).
Vertical leaf: old-fashioned, but can be automated, very much same
comments as Candle, better capacity than horizontal leaf.
Question 2
With the aid of diagrams, compare and contrast the design [25]
principles and practical features of operation and control
of a beer tunnel pasteurizer and a beer flash (plate/bulk)
pasteurizer.
Outline the advantages and disadvantages of sterile [10]
filtration techniques in comparison with flash
pasteurization, for preparing beer for sterile filling into
package.
Twenty three (62%) of the candidates elected to answer this question, but
only 4 provided really good answers. Over half did not achieve what could
be regarded as an acceptable score (i.e. a mark of 50%), which is
somewhat disappointing given the importance of pasteurization and sterile
filtration for beer packaging. It is fundamentally important that all beer
packagers understand the basic design principles and practical operation
and control of all types of pasteurizer and sterile filtration.
This question was not about pasteurization theory, which many candidates
elected to cover in considerable detail, but required a comprehensive
comparison of the design and operation of tunnel and flash (bulk)
pasteurizers. There is plenty of information about this topic in both the
course revision notes, review articles and textbooks. It appears that
several candidates had very limited knowledge of flash pasteurizer
operation and some made no attempt to include any information on flash
pasteurizers in their answers, thus limiting the marks allocation. In
addition, some candidates forgot (or ran out to time) to answer the section
on sterile filtration.
Further, the first part of the question requested diagrams; no candidate
will be penalised for lack of artistic ability, but if the examiner is expecting
diagrams, then it is a good plan to include them!
In the first section, the examiner was expecting the comparison to
describe the essential features of a tunnel pasteurizer, including:
• a series of water tanks which are linked together and piped to
feed overhead sprays, which progressively heat up and cool
down product in package, sufficiently in order to kill beer
spoilage organisms;
• the product in package is conveyed through the tunnel while
receiving the heat treatment in either a single or double deck
arrangement.
• Sufficient PUs must be achieved in order to kill the beer spoilage
organisms present, but in the most efficient way so as to ensure
that product heat damage is limited.
Design factors should have included:
• Materials of Construction
• Transport System
• Spray System
• Temperature Balance
• Heating Methods
The pasteuriser operation – to include: heating/cooling zones (linked
tanks), PU control + monitoring by travelling thermograph, chemical
treatment of water.
For comparison, the essential features of a flash pasteurizer should have
included:
• Pasteurized product separate from package; therefore followed
by sterile filling operation
• The essential design elements, including a plate heat
exchanger, with regeneration section for heat recovery;
• The key process requirements necessary to give a consistent
pasteurization result plus the use of plate pasteurization for
small-pack filling equipment, as well as the traditional use with
kegging.
Key target in plate pasteurization is the balance between inactivation of
beer spoilage microorganisms and the effects of heat on the sensory
quality of product. The heat treatment is a combination of holding time
and PU level and this will determine the pasteurization temperature from
the PU formula; this is typically in the range 71 to 74°C with a minimum
level of 69°C recommended.
Design features could have included the following:
• Product flow rate
• Physical properties of the liquids
• Temperature programme
• Permitted pressure drops
• Hygiene
• Cleanability requirements
• Heat exchanger type.
• Heat regeneration
• Operating parameters – to include: control of gas
content, product protection, flow controls, etc.
Finally, the answers on sterile filtration should have noted the advantage
of avoiding heat treatment of the product and thus any possible flavour
deterioration from heat treatment. Like flash pasteurization, sterile
filtration occurs before the product is put into the package and thus there
are risks of microbiological contamination occurring downstream of the
sterile filter. The disadvantages include: need for pre-filter (1.0 micron or
less) to protect final sterile filter (0.45 microns); integrity test at start and
end, but cannot be carried out during forward flow (whereas a flash
pasteurizer is easily monitored continuously) and more demanding
cleaning and hygiene assurance.
Overall, as last year, several candidates displayed a lack of understanding of
the basic principles and some of operational aspects of pasteurization,
especially flash (plate/bulk), in both the Short Answer Paper and Long
Answer Q2. This examiner strongly urges all potential candidates for the
qualification of Diploma in Beer Packaging to ensure that they concentrate
on these basic principles.
David Taylor
Examiners Report 2012 35
Module 1 :
Unit 3 – Planning and Line Design
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to demonstrate that
they have an understanding of the brewery planning process and how it
interfaces with the overall organisational plans.
Explain how the planning process operates for your brewery. Your
submission should include sales forecasting, capacity planning,
production scheduling, materials planning and the interfaces with the
distribution network.
Using the above process as a reference, explain how this links to the shift
pattern worked within your site. Highlight any improvements to the
process that could be made.
If your site is part of a larger company explain how your plan is
integrated with that of other sites within the business and what
implications this has throughout the year;
Or
If your site is the only production site within your company, explain how
production contingency arrangements are set up including how and
when these would be executed.
38 candidates submitted this assignment, and it was by far the weakest
area of knowledge and experience for the candidates within this module.
The scores ranged from a minimum of 9 up to a maximum score of 25 –
with the average score of 18.
For a number of candidates provided limited details for the initial planning
process cycle – with examples which stated there were different steps, but
then didn’t manage to link these through the normal budgeting and
planning cycles. Within this question the examiner was looking for the
candidate to start at the highest level of the planning process, and then
work through each stage, explaining how the details and focus increased
or changed at each step, and what impact this had on the planning
process.
As a result of candidates struggling with the first part of the assignment,
the reference data for the second section was often weak. However,
taking this in to account, a number of candidates made a better attempt at
being able to explain how the shift patterns were set to both cover the
annual volumes and also take in to account the seasonality of production.
The better candidates explained how the operations changed during the
year, where some candidates purely focused on overtime and the
associated costs.
The final section of the assignment asked the candidate to explain how the
contingency planning took place for their site – with the majority of
candidates explaining how production could be transferred between sites.
Better submissions covered additional costs and the alternate logistics and
distribution that were required to support contingency sourcing, but very
few submissions mentioned factors such as ensuring product flavour
matching was in place and ensuring packaging materials were compatible
with machines in use other sites.
Short Answer
This lack of awareness of the planning function continued in to the short
answer section of the exam, where the breadth of knowledge is tested.
The marks ranged from 11 to 29, with the average being 20. A number of
candidates were unable to answer the line performance calculations, and
some simply wrote down an answer without showing any working –
something which does not help the examiner understand the thought
process which has gone in to the answer. Additional focus on this Unit
would be recommended, as it was clear from the answers that not many
candidates had spent a lot of time with the planning function of their
company.
36 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Long Answer
1. List all the different types of non-productive time and [15]
explain how each of these should be taken into
consideration when planning the line and which
additional factors can affect these.
Given the above factors and the following information, [20]
propose the maximum annual output of the following
can line and state the assumptions you have made.
Filler speed = 1500 cans per minute
Can size = 330ml and 440ml split 50% by volume
Shift pattern = 3 crews each working 5 x 8 hour shifts
28 candidates chose question with scores ranging from 9 to 30 marks with
an average of 18. These answers demonstrated a very varied knowledge of
non-productive time. Weaker candidates chose purely to list the factors
they were aware of, in the hope of gaining some marks. Better responses
listed each of the factors separately and then provided details of how each
could affect the line output. Factors which should have been covered within
the list could have included the following:
• CIP requirements – including time, duration, frequency, product
types
• Machine breakdowns – including line reliability, historical
performance data, pack format
• Planned maintenance – including scheduling, manning, maturity
of planning, age of plant
• Slow running of the line – based around the v-graph, product
type and packaged format
• Trials & commissioning – including pack formats and the
complexity driven by these
• Briefings of crews - fixed duration and timing
• Start up/shut down procedures including CIP requirements,
manning, pre-preparation crews
• Crewing arrangements
• Beer availability for either on-site sources (filtration
performance) or from tankered in locations.
The second section required the candidates to calculated the annual output
of a can line, based around some key data points. Candidates were
expected to be able to explain the assumptions they had made – something
which a number of candidates chose to ignore. Key assumptions needed to
reference some of the areas highlighted in the first part of the question, as
well as assigning numerical values to each of these steps. Whilst this meant
the assumptions could vary between candidates, the fact that the
candidates who showed their working of each step generally scored the
better marks.
2. Explain how the civil finishes used in a packaging line [10]
contribute to the safety of both the product and the
employees.
List the other operational and environmental factors [10]
which can also affect product and employee safety
which you must take into consideration when designing
a returnable bottling line.
Explain the different key factors which should be taken [15]
into consideration when specifying the material storage
areas for a returnable bottling line and how these would
differ if the line were producing non-returnable bottles.
10 candidates chose to answer this question, but on the whole the
responses were very poor, with the scores ranging from 5 to 20 with an
average score of only 12. Only two candidates appeared to have any
background in the topic, which did raise questions as to why the candidates
selected this question.
The section on civil finishes was looking for candidates to explain how each
different finish contributed to the different safety aspects. Examples of
this could have included:-
• Food safety based answers such as:
o the use of hygienic finishes on the plant to minimise
the potential for build up and debris collection –
therefore helping minimise the microbiological
loading of the product;
o cleanability of the plant – leading to better
housekeeping
• Personnel safety based answers such as:
o The differing requirements in wet and dry
production areas requirements e.g. drainage,
ventilation, temperature;
o Durability of the construction fabric in order to
prevent hazards developing.
The operational line design part of this question was looking for candidates
to identify those factors which have a direct impact on the teams when the
plant is operational – rather than in design mode. Many answers gave
limited factors such as access and manual handling, however better
answers listed the use of chemicals (and their specific handling
requirements), the management of glass segregation and breakage, waste
management and also the control and detection measures for gases and
noise.
In the final section of the question the examiner was looking for
candidates to cover the key points for material storage including hygiene,
pest control, temperature controlled for labels, sufficient space for crate
storage and bottle acclimatisation. The differences between returnable
and non-returnable production lines should have focused around the
differing space requirement for bottle storage and secondary packaging.
Ruth Bromley
Module 1 :
Unit 4 – Small Pack Operations
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to show that they
had a good understanding of the inspection processes and procedures on
their line and how these are designed to protect the consumer.
Selecting a small pack line of your choice, carry out a study from the
depalletizer to the palletizer to identify all of the types of inspections
that are carried out. Explain the frequency of each of these inspections,
how these are documented and how any corrective actions are taken and
monitored. These inspections should cover incoming materials, in
process and finished product as well as maintenance and plant
observations.
List the key areas of loss you have identified within your study. Explain
how each of these could be addressed and the potential cost savings
associated with these changes.
37 candidates submitted this assignment with a range of scores from 10 to
24 and an average again of 18 (50%.)
A number of candidates restricted their inspections to only one or two
aspects of the inspection process. Product and finished pack inspections
were generally reasonably well described, but often did not cover all
aspects of the production line. Recording of inspection results were often
missing – hence making it difficult for candidates to explain how corrective
actions were then taken and monitored. Only a few candidates also
covered the maintenance inspections which were required for the plant.
This area should have included the monitoring observations which can be
carried out whilst the line is operational, as well as the more intrusive
monitoring which can only be done when the line is shut down.
The final section of the report also attracted a mix of submissions. The more
complete of these touched on all loss areas – supported by graphical or
tabular information – before focusing in on the key areas which they believe
should be addressed. Key to answering similar questions in future is the
ability to understand the financial impact of the losses, so that accurate cost
saving projects can be proposed and correctly evaluated.
Short Answer
This unit provided the widest range of scores on the short answer section
within the module – with the weakest candidate only scoring 12 marks and
the best almost getting everything correct at 32. The average score was a
pleasing 22, which helped reinforce the fact that candidates had a much
broader knowledge base on this paper. There were continued weaknesses
on calculation questions – which should be an area of focus for future
candidates.
Long Answer
1. For a non-registered 330ml bottle which requires front, [16]
back and neck labels draw a diagram of the labeller and
identify each of the key components.
Explain how the introduction of each of the products [9]
listed below would change the labelling operation:-
a) Introduction of a registered bottle
b) Introduction of a sleeved bottle
c) Introduction of pressure sensitive labels
List the key factors which can affect the bottle dress of a [10]
product as a result of the labelling operation.
17 candidates answered this first question with an average score of 17, but
actual scores ranging from 10 to 29. The diagrams of the labellers varied in
standard from the very clearly detailed to box based flow diagrams with
limited labeling. This should have been a reasonably easy process for
candidates, but in a number of cases significant sections of the labeller were
missing from the diagrams.
Overall the awareness of the impact of changing to registered bottles,
sleeves or PSL labels was quite poor.
• Registered bottles generally require significant investment in
additional engineering parts for the labeling machine to ensure
that all bottles are positioned identically. This is generally used
where the bottle is embossed, and the label is required to be in
the same position with reference to the embossing.
• The use of sleeving of bottles requires a completely separate
machine, as the sleeve has to be placed over the bottle and then
heat is used to shrink this into place. This requires additional
footprint space, and can also require modifications to conveyor
guards to prevent sleeve damage downstream.
• The modifications required to all for the introduction of PSL
labels are all around the label carousels and application, as well
as a normal increase in cost of the materials for the labels.
Quite limited information was provided by candidates regarding labeling
quality. Again this section should have been better understood by
candidates, as it related directly to normal line operations. Examples here
could have included a wide range of factors including some of the following:
the effects of bottle temperature, bottle dryness, effective glue application,
labeller speed and guiderail impact damage.
2. Draw and label a diagram of a can filler. [10]
Describe the can filling process from empty can entry [15]
into the filler through to entry of the can into the
seamer for a line, which has a tunnel pasteurizer.
[10]
List the reasons for sterile or aseptic filling and explain
the impact this has on the filling area and process.
Examiners Report 2012 37
21 candidates answered this question with an average score of 19.
However the candidate answers to the question varied dramatically with
the scores ranging from 6 to 29.
In general, whilst the descriptive section provided some reasonable to
good answers, the diagrams that accompanied these were generally very
poor. It is not unusual for a candidate to be asked to explain their answer
supported by a diagram, but these were not well known – and therefore
candidates struggled to reproduce these effectively.
The final section of the question also demonstrated an area of weakness
for a number of candidates – some not even being able to distinguish
between the two systems.
Ruth Bromley
Module 2 : (old syllabus)
Unit 5 – Small Pack Handling Operations
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to show that they
had a good understanding of the inspection processes and procedures on
their line and how these are designed to protect the consumer.
Selecting a small pack line of your choice, carry out a study from the
depalletizer to the palletizer to identify all of the types of inspections
that are carried out. Explain the frequency of each of these inspections,
how these are documented and how any corrective actions are taken and
monitored. These inspections should cover incoming materials, in
process and finished product as well as maintenance and plant
observations.
List the key areas of loss you have identified within your study. Explain
how each of these should be addressed and the potential cost savings
associated with these changes.
The two candidates provided submissions of differing style and quality of
content and so the marks ranged from 12 to 18 with both submissions
lacking the detail required by the question. The section on beer quality
was not addressed by either candidate. One candidate provided some
clearly stated conclusions, although was missing detail on how these could
be implemented – whereas the second candidate again missed this section
completely.
Additional background detail on this assignment can be reviewed in the
report for Unit 1.4.
Short Answer
This section of the exam showed that both candidates had a reasonably
good breadth of knowledge, with the marks ranging from 22 to 25.
Long Answer
Each candidate chose a different question, with one answer reasonable
and the other very comprehensive.
1. For a non-registered 330ml bottle which requires front, [16]
back and neck labels, draw a diagram of the labeller
and identify each of the key components.
Explain how each the introduction of each of the [9]
products listed below would change the labelling
operation:-
a) Introduction of a registered bottle
b) Introduction of a sleeved bottle
c) Introduction of pressure sensitive labels
List the key factors which can affect the bottle dress of [10]
a product as a result of the labelling operation.
38 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
This candidate provided a good description of the labeller operation with
good accompanying diagram. The weaker area of the answer was around
the introduction of the changes to the labeling operation as more detail was
expected in this. The detail on bottle dress was also slightly repetitive and
therefore did not cover off all requirements.
Additional background detail on this question can be reviewed in the report
for Unit 1.4.
2. Draw a flow diagram of all of the key items of plant and [15]
equipment required on a canning line, including all
relevant machine speeds. State any assumptions made
in terms of can size and market format.
Using a tabular format, highlight the key areas of loss in [20]
performance (beer, material, energy or plant efficiency)
that would be expected at each stage in the process,
including typical performance figures within the answer.
This candidate provided a very good layout drawing supported by clear
equipment descriptions. The candidate used their knowledge of an existing
line and applied their experience to the answer, including issues with their
line speeds – however they did not include how the line should be set up in
an ideal way. The line performance calculation question was also answered
thoroughly.
Additional background detail on this assignment can be reviewed in the
report for Unit 1.4.
Ruth Bromley
Module 2 :
Unit 6a – Large Container Packaging Operations for
Kegs
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate had a good
understanding of the control requirements for beer quality during keg filling
operations
Describe the potential threats to beer quality from packaging release tank
to filled keg.
Study a keg line operation of your choice and identify the plant design
features and operational procedures that are currently in use to ensure the
required microbiological and analytical standards in filled container.
Recommend one change in plant design and one change in operational
procedures that would improve protection against the above described
potential threats to beer quality.
Both submissions were rated satisfactory. More consideration of pasteuriser
control risks and more detail of the process control of beer, detergents, and
gases, were needed for a better rating. The recommended improvements,
whilst feasible, lacked any cost benefit analysis.
Short answer questions
Both candidates achieved scores above 60% of available marks. The
weakest areas of knowledge were keg mechanical handling, cycle times, and
beer dispense.
Long answer questions
1. Consider a keg line to package 1200 hls of beer per 16 hr working day
into 50 litre kegs:
 a) Estimate the required working flow rate for the flash
pasteuriser (hls/hr) and the rated filling speed of the keg filler
(kegs/hr) and provide your rationale for these. Specify the
number of lanes that would be required for a lane filler OR the
number of filling heads required for a rotary filling machine.
b) For this keg filler draw and label a flow diagram of the key
items of plant and equipment needed, from empty store to
full store, with indicative layout and machine speeds. Include
the beer supply from the outlet of the BBT.
c) Define the key performance indicators you would use to
monitor the performance of this keg line.
Both candidates opted to answer this question, one answering well and
the other gaining just above half marks.
Part a) was generally answered satisfactorily, with the candidates correctly
identifying the inefficiencies that impact on capacity and therefore on the
required keg filler speed (and the V curve speeds of infeed and discharge
machinery for part b)). Little consideration was given to the regulation of
pasteurizer flow and the impact of keg filler stoppages. Some lack of
understanding on the capacity capability of a lane racker (one
keg/min/lane regardless of the number of stations in the lane)
Part b) In general the main equipment was identified but the quality of
flow diagrams not good. Indicative layouts were not presented e.g.
identifying the benefit of infeed/discharge close proximity (“U” shape) for
FLT utilization. Keg turner requirements were either lacking or incorrect.
Empty keg fitness for fill was not shown (cap free/pressure/spear torque/
contaminants/label removal)
Part c) KPI’s were listed without definition, particularly line efficiency.
Areas not well covered were compliance for labeling and contents
legislation, and utilities consumption.
2. Choose either a linear or rotary keg filler and describe with aid of
diagrams, the internal cleaning and the filling processes for 50 litre
stainless steel kegs. Include all times, temperatures and details of
chemicals required.
Describe the checks (automatic or manual) which should be carried
out on the whole keg packaging line to ensure that the product
complies with all local legislation and regulations.
Neither candidate chose this option.
Zane Barnes
Module 2 :
Unit 7 – Packaging Line Design and Performance with
Capacity Planning
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to demonstrate that
they have an understanding of the brewery planning process and how it
interfaces with the overall organisational plans.
Explain how the planning process operates for your brewery. Your
submission should include sales forecasting, capacity planning,
production scheduling, materials planning and the interfaces with the
distribution network.
Using the above process as a reference, explain how this links to the shift
pattern worked within your site. Highlight any improvements to the
process that could be made.
If your site is part of a larger company explain how your plan is
integrated with that of other sites within the business and what
implications this has throughout the year;
Or
If your site is the only production site within your company, explain how
production contingency arrangements are set up including how and when
these would be executed.
Again a clear difference was seen between the two submissions with one
scoring 7 marks and the other 19.
Detail on the expected answer structure to this assignment can be read in
the Examiners remarks to the assignment in Unit 1.3.
Short Answer
This section showed a good breadth of understanding of the syllabus with
scores ranging from 25 to 30. Neither candidate seemed confident on the
calculation questions, but a good overall demonstration of knowledge was
provided by both candidates.
Long Answer
1. List all the different types of non-productive time and [15]
explain how each of these should be taken into
consideration when planning the line and which
additional factors can affect these.
Given the above factors and the following information, [20]
propose the maximum annual output of the following
can line and state the assumptions you have made.
Filler speed = 1500 cans per minute
Can size = 330ml and 440ml split 50% by volume
Shift pattern = 3 crews each working 5 x 8 hour shifts
Both candidates chose to answer this question, but with very different
standards of answers being provided, with one scoring 7 marks and the
other 30. The better answer provided a good overview of the types of non-
productive time including cleaning, CIP, meetings, maintenance,
changeovers, start up, shutdowns and minor stops. Additional areas which
could have usefully been included were beer availability, slow running, trials
and commissioning.
Detail on the expected answer structure to this question can be read in the
Examiners remarks to the assignment in Unit 1.3.
2. Compare and contrast two alternative types of line [10]
layouts for a returnable bottling line.
Explain how the conveyor design and line philosophy [25]
should be optimised for a returnable bottle line and
explain how and where the different accumulation
points should occur between key pieces of equipment
for both bottles and crates.
No answers were submitted for question 2.
Ruth Bromley
Module 2 :
Unit 8 – WCM, Maintenance, Safety, Utilities and
Environment
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood how
three key utilities are supplied and managed.
Examiners Report 2012 39
For a packaging line of your choice, describe how the following key
utilities are supplied:
a) Electricity
b) Steam
c) Water
Produce or reproduce schematic diagrams of your chosen line to show
the principal points where these three utilities are used.
Stating any assumptions you make, calculate the specific consumption of
each utility per unit of production output from the packaging line. For
water use hl/hl of output, electricity kWh/hl and steam (fossil fuel)
kWh/hl. Critically discuss the specific consumptions you have calculated,
draw conclusions and make recommendations for improved
performance.
This assignment produced disappointing results. Of the two submissions
one was satisfactory the other weak with less than half the expected
length and clearly a missed opportunity. Both submissions were fairly well
written with appropriate use of diagrams, graphs and tables.
Most aspects of task were covered but more rigour was anticipated. In the
fields of electricity, steam and water the examiner would have expected a
more critical discussion of actual performance and comparisons with best
in class for similar operations.
In the weak submission, the conclusions and recommendations for
improvement were few, simplistic and entirely qualitative. In the better
submission, the conclusions and recommendations for improvement were
again relatively few but well targeted. The suggested approach on creating
an energy saving culture and introducing energy KPI’s is highly relevant.
(b) Short Answer Questions
Section A of the paper featured 7 multiple choice questions and 13 short
answer, the latter ranging in marks from 1 to 5. Candidates are always
advised to allocate their time in proportion to the number of marks for
each question. One of the two candidates answered all 7 multiple choice
questions correctly.
In general health and safety and, increasingly the environment, are strong
areas for candidates whilst aspects of utilities and world class
manufacturing remain the weakest.
Pleasingly both candidates achieved full marks (5) in listing the principal
water consuming activities in a packaging operation (Q11). Previous years’
comments relating to “hazard” and “risk” seem to have been taken on
board with both candidates recognizing a definition of hazard in Q2.
Neither candidate produced the correct missing key element of a Health
and Safety Policy (Statement of Intent) in Q1 or recognized Value
Engineering or Value Analysis or even Lean Manufacturing as being
“equivalent performance at lower cost” or “better for less” in Q19. The
two types of Quality System Auditing sought by the examiner in Q20 were
“compliance” and “effectiveness” which neither candidate offered as their
answer.
(c) Long Answer Questions
The standard of the long answers was much better this year with both
candidates meriting a good mark. Thankfully for the examiner, one
candidate chose Q1 and one Q2.
Question 1 – Environment
Describe the impacts a beverage packaging plant can have on the
environment. [15]
Explain, with examples, what can be done to minimize the impacts. [20]
For the first part of the question the examiner was looking for descriptions
based on a minimum of the following points (not merely the list!):
40 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
• user of energy
• consumer of water and other natural resources
• source of atmospheric emissions, both directly (burning fossil fuels
in boilers, transport etc) and indirectly (electricity generation locally
and at power stations)
• source of noise and odour
• source of trade effluent
• source of packaging waste
For the second part of the question, explanations with specific examples,
were sought around the following:
• energy saving techniques for both heat (steam, hot water) and
electricity
• water conservation, reduction techniques
• CO2 reduction, carbon foot-printing
• noise reduction, odour suppression
• effluent minimization – segregation, treatment at source rather than
“end of pipe”, effluent treatment
• waste minimization – including light-weighting of packaging,
re-use, recycling, zero-to-landfill
Question 2 – Maintenance / World Class Manufacturing
Explain the principles and key features of Reliability Centred Maintenance
(RCM) and Workplace Organization (5S). [20]
In what circumstances might it be appropriate to adopt each? Provide
examples along with the potential benefits that they accrue. [15]
The candidate who answered this question did well but even so, in the first
part of the answer, produced a slightly weaker explanation of RCM
compared to 5S.
The examiner was seeking explanations of the following RCM principles:
• A focus on the preservation of system function;
• The identification of specific failure modes to define loss of function or
functional failure;
• The prioritisation of the importance of the failure modes, because not
all functions or functional failures are equal;
• The identification of effective and applicable maintenance tasks for the
appropriate failure modes. (Applicable means that the task will
prevent, mitigate, detect the onset of, or discover, the failure mode.
Effective means that among competing candidates the selected
maintenance task is the most cost effective option).
The explanations of the principles could have been expanded to
demonstrate how they are often implemented in a seven-step process
(future candidates and trainers may wish to follow-up on this).
For 5S, the candidate produced a near model answer with full explanations
of the four activities and one conviction (to continue with the four activities)
of the 5S components listed below (5S originated in Japan and there are
many translations of the Japanese words for 5S):
• “Sein” - Sort
• “Seiton” - Set in order
• “Seiso” - Shine
• “Seiketsu” - Standardise
• “Shitsuke” - Sustain
For the second part of the question, the adoption of the two techniques was
handled well by the candidate and his/her thoughts coincided in large
measure with those of the examiner. RCM can be used for an item or items
of plant with low mechanical efficiency e.g. palletizer, labeller, section of
conveyor, packing machine etc. It is also possible to consider the whole line
on a phased basis, starting with most inefficient item.
Although one of the prime objectives of RCM is to reduce the total costs
associated with system failure and downtime, evaluating the returns from
an RCM program solely by measuring its impact on costs hides many other
less tangible benefits. Typically these additional benefits fall into the
following areas:
 • improving system availability; practice”. This is often a weak point for the poorer assignments, which was
• optimizing spare parts inventory; the case again this year.
• identifying component failure significance;
• identifying hidden failure modes; (b) Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
• discovering significant, and previously unknown, failure
scenarios; Eight candidates attempted this section of the exam but only two passed
• providing training opportunities for system engineers and with an average score of 64% correct.
operations personnel;
• producing improved safety performance; Unit 9 appeared to be a difficult exam for this year’s cohort. Several
• identifying areas for potential design enhancement; candidates were unable to describe the ideal gas law let alone perform a
• providing a detailed review, and improvement where calculation with it. The computational aspects of the exam such as
necessary, of plant documentation; calculating the mass of carbon dioxide to fill a tank or performing a Henry’s
law calculation and the associated conversions into g CO2/L and vol/vol were
• providing benefit for team (and cross team) working in a
poorly attempted or avoided altogether. Candidates should understand the
different environment from normal operations.
relative solubilities of various gases used in brewing as well as what factors
affecting supersaturation. All candidates were able to correctly describe
For 5S the direct changes resulting from carrying out 5S are workplace
multiple forms of carbonating beer. Carbon dioxide collection was poorly
tidiness and orderliness. They generally have a beneficial effect on a large
understood and no candidates could describe how pressure swing
number of other factors which improve efficiency. These range from
adsorption produces high purity nitrogen from air.
reduced time searching for tools, reduced changeover time, reduced
inventory to reduced cycle time.
(c) Longer Answer Question
Importantly 5S can be the vehicle to achieve cultural change via
Question 1 – Carbonation and gas law problem
housekeeping leading to better control of waste and waste minimization,
as stepping-stones to autonomous maintenance and sometimes even
By referring to Henry's Law and a mass transfer rate equation, discuss the
leaderless teams!
factors which control the rate of carbon dioxide pick-up in beer contained
in a keg when the pressure of CO2 in the gaseous phase above the beer is
Robin Cooper
in excess of the equilibrium pressure necessary to keep the CO2 in
solution. [20]
Module 3: (old syllabus)
Unit 9 – Process Gases for Packaging. A beer keg of 50 × 10-3 m3 capacity stored in cellar at a temperature of
12°C contains 40 × 10-3 m3 of beer whose CO2 concentration is 1.4
(a) Assignment volumes of per volume of beer at STP. The headspace in the keg is filled
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood with CO2 which is in equilibrium with the beer. Stating any assumptions
carbon dioxide use in packaging.
made, calculate the pressure (kPa) of the CO2 in the head space and the
Explain your company’s specification for carbon dioxide quality and mass (kg) of CO2 in the beer. [15]
discuss why each of the identified quality parameters is important to
beer quality. Include in your discussion the potential consequence of Data
using carbon dioxide that is out of specification. One mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 L at STP.
Atomic weights: CO2 = 44, H2O = 18.
Draw a diagram and explain how carbon dioxide is handled and Beer density = 1.008 kg L-1
measured in your packaging hall beginning with bulk storage of the gas Henry's constant for CO2 in water at 12°C = 120 MPa (mole fraction)-1
and ending with the various points where the gas comes in contact with
beer.
Two candidates attempted this question and one passed.
Describe how your company’s external industrial gas supplier The first part asked candidates describe the factors that affect the rate of
manufactures carbon dioxide and what steps are taken to achieve the
carbonation when a system is undersaturated. The examiner was looking to
specifications described earlier.
see the use of Henry’s law combined with a mass transfer equation to build
the discussion. Factors such as temperature, interfacial area, mixing (mass
Describe how carbon dioxide can be collected and cleaned up within the
transfer coefficient) and concentration difference were the factors to be
brewery and present some cost estimates comparing onsite collection
discussed. For a keg, the interfacial area was fixed as was the mass transfer
versus purchasing carbon dioxide externally.
coefficient. The computational part of the question began with a
straightforward Henry’s law calculation to estimate the pressure in the
All nine of the candidates received passing marks for this assignment headspace (134 kPa) and some units balancing to estimate the mass of gas
although two were right at the edge. Nonetheless, the average score
in the liquid phase (0.11 kg).
across all candidates was 70%, which is very encouraging. The assignment
focused on carbon dioxide quality, measurement, collection and handling.
Question 2 – CO2 storage, distribution and quality
All candidates were able to provide a table of quality specifications and
discussed the importance of low residual oxygen. Better answers also
With the aid of a process flow diagram describe how CO2 is stored at a
discussed benzene (some even mentioning the Perrier recall in the 1990’s),
brewery or packaging facility, the various ways it can be vaporized for use,
oil, sulphur and moisture. Use of diagrams and photos of the candidates’
and how it is distributed through the plant. [15]
facility are useful aids in preparing the assignment. This one explicitly
asked for one and the quality of what the examiner received was variable.
Discuss CO2 purity and its influence on beer quality. Include in your answer
Carbon dioxide manufacturing was described in many cases as a by-
the major contaminants to gas purity, guidelines for acceptable levels of
product of fertilizer manufacturing, but it can also be produced via
these contaminants, and means of rectifying situations when the gas is out
combustion of fuel or captured as a by-product of the chemical industry.
of specification. [20]
Onsite CO2 collection systems were generally well discussed; however the
cost analysis of purchasing offsite versus collecting onsite was highly
Five candidates attempted this question and three passed with an average
variable in the quality and depth of the analysis. One of the important
of 53%.
parts of the assignment is for candidates to make recommendations
towards better practices or providing justifications why their current

Examiners Report 2012 41

practices are “best
This first part of the question was asking about carbon dioxide storage and
not collection from fermentation gases. Many candidates unnecessarily
discussed how fermentation gases can be collected, cleaned up and
liquefied. The first part was asking how CO2 is stored (configuration of
tank(s), temperature and pressure) and different ways it can be vaporized
before use (for example, steam vaporization, finned, ambient-air heated
vaporizers, using CO2 as a refrigerant). Only one candidate mentioned how
the gas is distributed throughout the brewery. The second part focused on
gas purity. All candidates mentioned that oxygen is the most important
contaminant but only several offered specifications around maximum
oxygen content. Some candidates mentioned moisture and off flavours as
contaminants to avoid. None discussed benzene and volatile organic
carbon as important contaminants. There was no mention of how to
rectify situations when the gas is out of specification.
Thomas Shellhammer
Module 3 :
Unit 10 - Fluid Dynamics for Packaging and Materials of
Construction
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
use of pumps in fluid flow applications.
For a complete packaging line of your choice, carry out a survey of all the
differing pump types employed in the various fluid flow applications.
Your survey should include an example of each of the differing pump
types used in beer handling, utilities and CIP. For each example describe:
(a) the type of pump (not how it works), (b) the application, (c) the
criteria by which you believe the pump was selected, (d) the cleaning
requirements and (e) the maintenance requirements. In addition for each
example, comment on any issues relating to performance, maintenance,
accessibility etc. Draw conclusions and make recommendations for
replacement strategy or for future projects.
Produce or reproduce a schematic diagram of the beer supply system
from bright beer tank (BBT) to container fill showing pipe diameters and
distances together with any other devices in the system. Stating any
assumptions you make, calculate the theoretical beer pump motor
power requirement for this duty. Compare your figure with the actual
pump motor power rating and explain any difference.
Submissions were of a generally pleasing quality ranging from satisfactory
to good, with one very good submission. The better answers were well
planned, structured, of appropriate length and with sound conclusions and
recommendations.
The types of pumps were fairly well covered with, in most cases, the
application, selection criteria and cleaning requirements being
satisfactorily handled. Candidates variously made good use of
photographs, diagrams and tables. The most variable section was that on
maintenance where the examiner anticipated more detail and rigor in the
discussion (e.g. inspection periodicities, seal and bearing replacement etc).
The better submissions described the benefits of condition monitoring.
Conclusions and recommendations were generally sound but too often
limited in scope and specific proposals. A number of candidates made
welcome points for consideration in the field of “Early Equipment
Management”.
The calculation produced a variety of responses ranging from a near model
answer to a figure, which was so obviously incorrect that the candidate
should have carried out further work or sought assistance. Too often the
calculations lacked key information to explain, for example, where the
overall head figure was derived.
Robin Cooper
(b) Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
42 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Seven candidates attempted this section of the exam five passed with an
average score of 71% correct.
All candidates were familiar with the Reynolds number, the properties that
make up the number and its use. Nearly all were familiar with the
components of mechanical energy in a fluid system and could correctly
identify different pump types and their applications. Most of the candidates
had difficulty with computational aspects of estimating hydrostatic pressure
or velocity changes in a piping system. Many did not understand water
hammer in a pipe system or the steps to minimize or prevent it. Most were
familiar with the thermal properties of different metals as well as stainless
steel components.
(c) Longer Answer Question
Question 1 – Mechanical energy in fluids and pumping problem
Describe the different forms of mechanical energy a fluid contained within
pipework may possess and how each form manifests itself. [15]
Water is to be transferred between tanks at a rate of 1 kg⋅⋅s-1. Given that
the desired velocity in the pipework is 2 m⋅⋅s-1 what nominal pipe diameter
would you select from the standard pipe sizes: 0.025 : 0.030 : 0.040 m
internal diameter? Water density can be assumed to be constant at 1000
kg⋅⋅m-3. Gravitational constant is 9.8 m1 kg⋅⋅s-2. [10]
If it has been estimated that the total head to be overcome is 25 m, specify
to the nearest kW the pump motor power required assuming an efficiency
of 60%. [10]
Three candidates attempted this question two passed with an average score
of 78%.
The first part asked candidates to describe the three forms of mechanical
energy found in fluid filled system – kinetic, potential and pressure energies.
The first two forms were addressed fairly well while a discussion of pressure
energy was absent or poorly described. For the second part of the question,
the candidate should have used the relationship between the mass flowrate
of a fluid moving in a pipe being equal to the fluid density, it’s linear velocity
and the pipe’s cross sectional area to determine the appropriate pipe
diameter (0.025 m). The last part was a straightforward pumping power
calculation yielding 408 W.
Question 2 – Stainless steel and corrosion
Explain, with examples, why stainless steel is such a useful material in beer
packaging. [10]
Describe how the various components of stainless steel contribute to its
properties. [10]
Describe 3 different types of stainless steel corrosion and what steps can
be taken to minimize the chances of each occurring. Give 2 examples of
stress corrosion in packaging equipment and key causes by example. [15]
Four candidates attempted this question and two passed with an average of
78%.
The first part of this question was answered fairly well. Stainless steel is
inert, resist’s corrosion, is tough, durable, and relatively easy to weld. Its
properties are derived from chromium (>10.5%), which leads to a passive
chromium oxide layer in oxidizing environments. Nickel encourages
austenite, acid resistance, toughness, ductility. Carbon yields high
temperature strength, encourages ferrite to austenite transformation but
leads to weld sensitization (precipitation of chromium carbide).
Molybdenum provides chloride resistance, and nitrogen increases strength
and resistance to pitting. The last part of the question asked the candidate
to describe 3 different types of corrosion such as galvanic corrosion;
intergranular corrosion, weld corrosion, and stress crack corrosion (SCC).
The later type was the focus of the final part of the answer – heat,
mechanical stress and chloride combine to lead to SCC.

Module 3 :
Unit 11 - Thermal Energy Transfer For Packaging
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
key issues in operating and maintaining an efficient refrigeration system.
Produce or reproduce a schematic diagram of a large refrigeration
system of your choice. You should show and label all the devices in the
system along with pipe and insulation sizes, pressures and temperatures.
Explain the key parameters to be monitored to ensure effective control.
Stating any assumptions you make, calculate the overall Coefficient of
Performance (COP) of the entire system.
Carry out a critical audit of the operation and maintenance of the
refrigeration system including an assessment of the total operating costs.
Draw conclusions on the overall performance of the system and make
recommendations for improvements.
Of the seven submissions, three were rated good (one excellent) and four
satisfactory. The majority featured reasonable schematic diagrams with
the best using photographs, screen-shots and tables to support various
sections of their submissions.
The one truly excellent answer showed a reproduction diagram with all the
symbols fully explained. The various system devices, pipe sizes and key
parameters were well annotated. The same candidate produced a very
good COP calculation with sound assumptions.
The less good submissions had main diagrams which were too simplistic
with symbols not explained. Equally for most of these candidates, the
examiner expected fuller, more thorough COP calculations – one candidate
produced an unrealistically high COP figure, which should have prompted
further investigation.
The audit was intended to assess actual plant performance, running costs
and associated issues including maintenance – not, as some submitted,
simply a description of the maintenance and safety requirements.
Robin Cooper
(b) Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
Seven candidates attempted this section of the exam but only three
passed with an average score of 69% correct. One candidate received a
nearly perfect score on this section. Of the candidates who did not pass,
there were some very low scores possibly reflecting a lack of preparation
for this exam.
Of the group of candidates who passed, they were successful in estimating
heat fluxes in short computations using data supplied. They could identify
factors that would improve or reduce heat flux in insulated and non-
insulated systems. Further they could successfully diagram temperature
profiles within heat exchangers. Surprisingly, very few of any of the
candidates understand that the maximal density of beer is roughly 3°C and
not 0°C. Poor answers or no attempt was provided for a question around
steam quality. There was a lack of understanding about basic boiler
maintenance such as why a boiler is periodically blown down. Candidates
correctly identified CFC’s as refrigerants with the greatest ozone depletion
potential but many could not correctly explain why.
(c) Longer Answer Questions
Question 1 – Forms of heat transfer and tank insulation
Describe the three basic forms of heat transfer. What factors control the
Thomas Shellhammer
Calculate the rate of energy gain via conduction through the wall of a non-
insulated stainless steel bright beer tank containing beer at 0°C that sits in
a packaging hall. Assume the exterior surface of the tank is at 2°C. [10]
Calculate a new rate of energy gain if the same tank is insulated with
30mm thick material (thermal conductivity = 0.1 W⋅⋅m-1⋅K-1). In this case the
exterior surface of the insulated tank is 15°C. [10]
Recommend the type of insulation material used for this application and
justify your answer. [5]
Data
Tank surface area = 40 m2
Stainless steel thickness = 3 mm
Stainless steel thermal conductivity = 15 W m-1⋅K-1
Three candidates attempted this question but only one passed with a near
perfect score of 97%. The first part asked candidates to identify and
describe conduction, convection and radiation. Use of the basic equations
for each type of heat transfer would allow candidates to easily describe
factors that affect the rate of heat transfer. Examples of each were for the
most part on target. The computational part of the question was clearly a
challenge for the two failing attempts. Fourier’s law was used to identify the
conduction rate of 400,000 W in the uninsulated tank. Using an electrical
analogy to sum the resistances of heat transfer for both the tank and the
insulation material provided an overall resistance to heat transfer in the
insulated tank problem, which in turn was used with Fourier’s law to
estimate the heat loss to be 2000 W when the tank was insulated. The final
part of the question looked for discussion of why a closed-cell foam
insulation was necessary when insulating a cold tank (to prevent condensed
water on the cold tank surface from filling the pores of the insulation
material).
Question 2 – Refrigeration
With the aid of clear diagrams describe the basic operations of an ideal
vapour-compression refrigeration cycle and explain how it can be adopted
as a primary refrigerant system for a packaging operation. You are
required to make a decision on complementary cooling for your tunnel
pasteurizer to reduce beer out temperature. What criteria would you
consider for making this change? [20]
A refrigerant compressor of 65 kW is designed to take 0.2 m3⋅s-1 of
ammonia gas from the primary refrigerant storage tank evaporator
(-20°C and 200 kPa pressure). What is the coefficient of performance of
this refrigerator system? State clearly any assumptions that you make.
[15]
Data
Molecular weight of ammonia 17
1 mole of gas occupies 22.4 L at STP
Gas constant for ammonia 0.50 kJ·kg-1⋅K-1
Latent heat of vaporization for ammonia 1200 kJ·kg-1
Four candidates attempted this question and all did very poorly yielding an
average score of 29%.
Candidates in many cases were unable to diagram the flow path for a
vapour-compression refrigeration system. They were thus unable to
describe the state of the refrigerant as it moved through the system and
how the latent heat absorbs and releases thermal energy. Candidates could
not convey their knowledge of what a primary refrigerant is (ammonia or
Freon) and were confused ammonia as a secondary refrigerant. Similarly,
some confused glycol as a primary refrigerant. Applications of refrigeration
in the packaging hall were minimal to non-existent. Discussion of adding
cooling to a tunnel pasteurizer was absent in all but one case. Two of the
candidates did not attempt the computational part of the question and the
other two made very weak attempts. The overall conclusion of this examiner
was that the candidates had not prepared for the exam and were clearly
unfamiliar with the basic operation of refrigeration systems.
Examiners Report 2012 43
rate of heat transfer in each case? Provide an example of each that can Thomas Shellhammer
be found in the packaging hall or brewery. [10]

Module 3 : Describe the purpose and operation of each of the following items in a
Unit 12 - Process/Line Control and Instrumentation computer control system. For each, provide an example within a packaging
plant along with a rationale for its selection.
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show the candidate’s knowledge of Input/Output (I/O) interface [5]
different types of control loops/systems drawing upon examples within Programmable Logic Controller – PLC [5]
the packaging hall. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition – SCADA [5]

Discuss the objective(s) of process control and present the advantages Two candidates attempted this question but only one passed with a score of
and disadvantages of open and closed loop systems in achieving the 66%.
objective(s).
Sensor selection involves identifying a device that is suitable for the process
Within your packaging hall, or accompanying cellar, find two examples being measured, takes into consideration the accuracy, repeatability and
each of feed forward and feedback control loops. For each of these, reliability of the device, and is also based on cost and
• describe the system being controlled, availability/replaceability. A Distributed Control System is comprised of a
• explain the principle(s) and mechanism(s) upon which the number of PC’s, PLC’s and other control devices that are networked
sensing element works, together. The advantage is that the entire system can remain running in the
• discuss in detail how the information is passed throughout the event that any part of the system goes down. Furthermore, data can be
control loop, viewed from multiple site and/or remotely. There is also let hardwiring since
the data transmission is via a network. The I/O interface handles inputs
• explain what controlling algorithm is being used,
(such as temperature, flow rate, proximity sensors, etc.) and outputs (signals
• discuss how this control loop information is used, acted upon,
to actuate valves, motors, etc). It is often panel mounted and handles
or stored,
communication between the control system and I/O equipment. A PLC is a
• justify a conclusion about the appropriateness of the selected
device for controlling a batch or continuous process using software
controller or make a recommendation for an improved or
contained within the unit itself. Once programmed it can operate as a stand-
more appropriate controller.
alone device although in newer systems they are networked to the control
Use photographs and/or diagrams if it will aid in your discussion.
network (DCS) and communicated with on a frequent basis. Tank
temperature controllers are common examples of this device. SCADA is a
Nine candidates submitted this assignment - one did poorly and two
PC-based interface allowing easy information to flow to and from PLCs. It
submitted near perfect papers. The rest performed satisfactorily. The
usually provides the live plant mimics that are used by the operators to
examiner was looking for a detailed discussion comparing open and closed
initiate and control the process stages, as well as providing real time
loop control system that would lead to examples of feed-forward and
information on the plant status. It provides the data gathering from which
feedback control in the packaging hall. Several candidates provided very
information systems can work to produce trends, reports etc.
nice introductions about the role of process control identifying benefits
beyond simply keeping a process within specification limits such as worker
Question 2 – Fundamentals of process control and control theory
safety, environmental impacts, and cost reductions. Candidates
approached the second part of the assignment, which focused on specific
Explain the purpose and key features of process control. [10]
examples, with a wide range of level of detail. The examiner specifically
laid out six discussion points that needed to be addressed for each
Using diagrams and equations, explain the response of a controller to a
example and in many cases not all of these were addressed or with
disturbance entering the system when using each the following control
insufficient detail. For instance, if the example involved flow control then
actions:
the examiner wished to see the candidate discuss in detail how the
proportional action [5]
particular flow sensor worked. Diagrams were effectively used by some of
proportional plus integral action [5]
the candidates but could have been more effectively used by others. As
proportional plus integral plus derivative action [5]
with many of the assignments, including those outside of Unit 12, the level
of conclusions/justifications was highly variable. In spite of it being
Give one example in a packaging operation of a control loop where on-off
explicitly asked for, it is often overlooked by many candidates resulting in
control would be the best choice and one application where PID control
reduction in marks on the assignment.
would be the better choice, explaining the reasons for these choices. [10]
(b) Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions
Seven candidate attempted this question and with six of them passing, one
of which received a perfect score. The first part asked the candidate to
Nine candidates attempted this section of the exam but only five passed
explain the purpose of process control and describe the key features. At a
with an average score of 66% correct. The candidates did their best on
minimum the purpose is to keep a process within performance
questions dealing with control theory and control system components,
specifications given disturbances introduced to the system. Better answers
although many had difficulty correctly defining “offset” in proportional
also mentioned the effects that process control can have on efficiency of the
control. Interestingly, the candidates did poorly on questions asking them
system, safety of operators, environmental impact, regulatory compliance,
to draw valves, flow meters, and control system response. Only one
and profitability to the company. The key features should have included the
candidate was able to describe the principal of operation of a modern
process/system, sensors, controller and actuator(s). The discussion of the
turbidity meter and correctly explain the purpose of forward scattering
controller response using P, P-I and PID control was best answered when
versus side scattering detectors.
following the guidance of the examiner – i.e. using diagrams and equations
to bolster the discussion. Proportional control utilizes a control effect that is
(c) Longer Answer Questions
proportional to the error measured in the system. One problem with
proportional control is persistent offset. Adding integral control eliminates
Question 1 – Sensor selection and information routing/control
offset by integrating the error effect overtime and trying to
minimize/eliminate it. Consequently the response is slower than
Describe the factors to be considered when selecting a sensor for use in
proportional, alone. Derivative control relies on measuring the rate of
the packaging hall. [10]
change of the error in a system. It speeds up control action but can be
thrown off by a noisy (high frequency random oscillation) signal in the
Explain the advantages of a Distributed Control System (DCS) versus
system. Examples provided by candidates ranged from well-described
other systems. [10]
examples to poorly or incorrectly interpreted one.
Thomas Shellhammer

44 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN BREWING AND PACKAGING
(BEER) EXAMINATIONS

November 2011 Report May 2012 Report

The Autumn examinations for the General Certificates in Brewing and
Packaging (GCB, GCP) were held in November 2011 at 58 centres in 22
countries.
This was the 13th of the new multiple-choice examinations with specialist
options for brewing and packaging variations, i.e. C&F, Cask, Keg, RB
(Returnable Bottles), NRB (Non Returnable Bottles) and Can.
The examination was taken ‘on-line’ at 13 centres across the world, 11 of
them being outside the UK and Ireland.
There were 297 entries, with an overall pass rate of 58.6%, which
compares well with 60% for the corresponding examination in Nov 2010.
The pass rate achieved by candidates sitting the examination ‘on line’ was
55.9%. On paper the pass rate was 57.5%
The break-down between GCB and GCP results is shown below in table 1
The Spring examinations for the General Certificates in Brewing and
Packaging (GCB, GCP) was held in May 2012 at 56 centres in 28 countries.
This was the 14th of the new multiple-choice examinations with specialist
options for brewing and packaging variations, i.e. C&F, Cask, Keg, RB
(Returnable Bottles), NRB (Non Returnable Bottles) and Can, and an
additional ‘bespoke’ paper, embracing all packaging types currently being
examined for a large brewing organisation.
The examination was taken ‘on-line’ at 19 centres across the world, 18 of
them being outside the UK and Ireland: the current level of ‘UK intake’ for
the on-line option is worryingly low.
There were 302 entries, with an overall pass rate of 53.0%, which compares
with a figure of 58.6% for the corresponding examination in May 2011.
The pass rate achieved by candidates sitting the examination ‘on line’ was
49.3%. On paper the pass rate was 54.0%

Nov 2011 The break-down between GCB and GCP results is shown below in table 1
Exam Option Distinction Credit Pass Fail Total
May 2012
GCP Can 0 4 3 2 9
Exam Option Distinction Credit Pass Fail Total
Keg 0 2 7 7 16
GCP Can 0 2 2 1 5
NRB 0 2 9 8 19
Keg 0 1 4 4 9
RB 1 5 23 35 64
NRB 3 3 10 15 31
GCB Cask 2 7 18 7 34
RB 2 8 7 19 36
C&F 11 30 51 63 155 All
Options 0 2 14 9 25
COMMENTS
GCB Cask 2 5 6 10 23
Overall the pass rate for GCB was 63.0% with 13 distinctions (90%) and 37 C&F 1 26 65 81 173
credits (80%).
COMMENTS
The pass rate for the ‘C&F’ paper was 59.3% with 11 distinctions and 30
credits. Overall the pass rate for GCB was 53.5% with 3 distinctions (90%) and 31
credits (80%).
For GCP the figure was 51.9%, with 1 distinction and 13 credits being
awarded. The pass rate for the ‘C&F’ paper was 53.2% with 1 distinction and 26
credits.

For GCP the figure was 54.7%, with 5 distinctions and 16 credits being
awarded.

Colin McCrorie

Examiners Report 2012 45

 Successful Candidates

The successful candidates from the 2012 Diploma and Master Brewer Examinations,
who met all the IBD criteria, are listed as follows:

MASTER BREWER

MB1 Passes MB3 Passes

Inalegwu Adoga Nigerian Breweries plc Nathan Calman LION

Jan Brestovansky Guinness Cameroon SA Miles Chesterman Hogs Back Brewery Ltd
Christopher Cook Fuller Smith & Turner plc Alan Dempsey Diageo Global Supply
Lindsay Crawford Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Gregory Deuhs Pabst Brewing Company
Brian Destree MillerCoors Chika Ezeani Guinness Nigeria plc
Julriech Farmer South African Breweries Oluwaseun Faturiyele Nigerian Breweries plc
Daniel Gooderham Adnams & Co plc Tully Hadley Carlton & United Breweries
Mathew Henney Dartmoor Brewery Ltd Peter Hofmann South African Breweries
Brian Karemba Delta Beverages Ltd Daniel Kerruish University of Nottingham
Bhavya Mandanna Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Apiwe Nxusani South African Breweries
Luis Ortega Diageo Global Supply Olusoji Ogunsola Guinness Nigeria plc
Lloyd Rees Joseph Holt plc Keshav Patkar Skol Breweries Ltd
Samuel Seward Fosters Australia Limited Gabriel Pitso Lesotho Brewing Company
Sam Shrimpton Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd David Rogers Rogers OPEX Consulting
Thomas Spencer Marstons plc Raj Sharma SABMiller India
Steven Tomblin Hall & Woodhouse Ltd Christopher Sheehan Lion
Robert Topham Fuller Smith & Turner plc Manoj Thandel Skol Breweries Ltd
Alexandra Uherova Guinness Cameroon SA
Genevieve Upton Marstons plc
Chris Willcock IBD Asia Pacific Section MB4 Passes
Peter Yarlett Harvey & Son (Lewes) Ltd
Abiodun Ajayi Nigerian Breweries plc
Sharad Bhardwaj Skol Breweries Ltd
MB2 Passes Jaydeep Chatterjee Novozymes South Asia PVT Ltd
Louis de Jager South African Breweries
Inalegwu Adoga Nigerian Breweries plc Lawrence Egan Diageo Global Supply
Michael Benson Thomas Hardy Holdings Ltd Jonathan Elks Carlsberg UK Ltd
Nathan Calman Lion Peter Hofmann South African Breweries
Jaydeep Chatterjee Novozymes South Asia Ltd Michael Impey Diageo Global Supply
Miles Chesterman Hogs Back Brewery Ltd Brian Karemba Delta Beverages Ltd
Richard Clarke Diageo Global Supply Robert Kelly Diageo Global Supply
Iyobosa Erhabor Nigerian Breweries plc Dominika Kwarciak Carlsberg UK Ltd
Sarah Fox Diageo Global Supply Edward Nsubuga South African Breweries
Letitia Hamman South African Breweries John O'Brien Diageo Global Supply
David Hopper Camerons Brewery Ltd Raj Sharma SABMiller India
Innocent Tagne Guinness Cameroon SA Simon Smith Molson Coors Brewing (UK)
Lisa Marie Marlow Diageo Global Supply Manoj Thandel Skol Breweries Ltd
Patrick McGinty Marstons plc
Richard Moxom Diageo Global Supply
MB5 Passes
Edward Nsubuga South African Breweries
John O'Brien Diageo Global Supply
Sharad Bhardwaj Skol Breweries Ltd
Fearghal O'Connor Diageo Australia Ltd
Nathan Calman Lion
Samuel Oiko Uganda Breweries Ltd
Jaydeep Chatterjee Novozymes South Asia PVT Ltd
Oyebode Oloyede Nigerian Breweries plc
Jonathan Elks Carlsberg UK Ltd
Lloyd Rees Joseph Holt plc
Adeolu Ogunyinka Nigerian Breweries plc
Sam Shrimpton Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Gabriel Pitso Lesotho Brewing Company
Jonathan Tillson Wychwood Brewery Co. Ltd
David Rogers Rogers OPEX Consulting
Steven Tomblin Hall & Woodhouse Ltd
Simon Smith Molson Coors Brewing (UK)
Robert Topham Fuller Smith & Turner plc
Emma Walton Lion
Robert Whelan Diageo Global Supply

46 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

MASTER BREWER Gabriel Dulong Sleeman Unibroue Brewery
Daryl Eisenbarth University of California
AWARDED MASTER BREWER QUALIFICATION HAVING
Graham Ellis Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
COMPLETED ALL 5 MODULES
Brennan Fleming University of California
Nathan Garth Calman LION Adam Fletcher Marstons plc
Nicholas Fodor University of California
Gregory S Deuhs Pabst Brewing Company
Matthew Fuerst IBD International Section
Jonathan William Elks Carlsberg UK Ltd
Conor Gallagher-Deeks Birra Del Borgo
Dominika Kwarciak Carlsberg UK Ltd
Orla Gill Diageo Global Supply
Adeolu Babafemi Ogunyinka Nigerian Breweries plc Chialee Goh Lion
Gabriel Pitso Lesotho Brewing Company Aaron Golston MillerCoors
Raj Kumar Sharma SABMiller India Michael Joseph Gonzales MillerCoors

Simon Andrew Smith Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Harvey Edward Gould Murphy & Son Ltd
Charlotte Frances Grant Little Creatures Brewery
Scott Ian Hargrave Stone and Wood Brewing Co
Quinlan Harris University of California
DIPLOMA IN BREWING
Feodora Heavey Diageo Global Supply

Module 1 Passes John Hensley MillerCoors

Jesus Omar Herrera University of California
Marwan Badr Abu Taleb Alahram Beverages Company Marlowe Hoffman University of California
Samuel Addison Accra Brewery Ltd Sarah Hughes Leeds Brewery
Natasha Alves Diageo Global Supply Ina Ina Igbong Nigerian Breweries plc
Justin Andrews University of California Robert Carl Jacobson South African Breweries Limited
Victoria Troaca Ariho Uganda Breweries Ltd Jeremy Janus University of California
Sussana Atta-Bonsu Guinness Ghana Breweries Ltd David Martyn Jenkins IBD Midland Section
Oluwole David Ayokunle Nigerian Breweries plc Kenneth Jenkins University of California
Aline Baert Heineken Entreprise France Colin Johnston Tennent Caledonian UK Ltd
Timothy Stuart Barber Metalman Brewing Ltd. Rebecca Jones MillerCoors
Adribert Baregensabe Brasseries Heineken Toshihiro Kamada Kirin Brewery Co Ltd
Hayley Barton Cumbrian Legendary Ales Clement Gachanja Kiai East African Breweries Ltd
Edward Richard Bates Rebellion Beer Company Alexander David Kidney Molson Coors Canada
Jason Bell Craft Beverage Solutions Jackson Kilimani Nile Breweries Ltd
Katherine Bexfield Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Myung-Keon Kim Hite
Evariste Bizimana Brasseries Heineken Paul Konopelski University of California
Akos Istvan Bodos Heineken UK Ltd Rakesh Koorapati Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Kraig Alan Bridgeford Lost Coast Brewery Alexander Conrad Kopf Craft Brewers Alliance
Timothy Andrew Bridges The Oakleaf Brewing Company Micah Krichinsky University of California
Ras Theodore Browne St Vincent Brewery Ltd Vipul Kumar United Breweries Limited
Craig Matthew Buddle Lion Joseph Kurowski University of California
Andri Budiarto PT Multi Bintang Indonesia Chandapiwa Leteane Kgalagadi Breweries (Pty) Ltd
Andrew Bullied Village Brewery Emma Lewis-White Heineken UK Ltd
Wouter Buschgens Heineken Nederland BV Justin Low University of California
Jonathan Bwalya Zambian Breweries plc Nicholas Lubwama Nile Breweries Ltd
Jean-Christophe Cambier Heineken Entreprise France Sophia Machemba Serengeti Breweries Ltd
Ian James Campbell Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Francis Joseph Maguire Diageo Global Supply
Carme Cervantes Casado Mission Brewery Marcelino Mahassa Cervejas De Mozambique
Andrew Chang University of California Rory Main DB Breweries Limited
Steven Clare Diageo Australia Ltd David Main University of California
Alexander Combe MillerCoors LLC Joel Makena SAB Limited
Nathan Crane University of California Paul Mallory University of California
Brent Crowell Smoky Mountain Brewery Lizzy Matsaung Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Kate Curran Diageo Global Supply David John McGovern The Chiltern Brewery
Miriam Modong Dangasuk Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd Margaret Helen McKay Nat. Research Council of Canada
Raymond Dolo Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Adrian McNulty 3 Ravens Brewing Company
Marsha Donnelly Diageo Global Supply Lucas Mofokeng South African Breweries Limited
Preston Doris University of California Vivian Kemunto Mogaka East African Breweries Ltd

Examiners Report 2012 47

 Ntenne Adelaide Mohlala South African Breweries Gomolemo Gillian Seboko South African Breweries Limited
Reoagile Monageng Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Ihab Sefain Alahram Beverages Company
Ian Hardicker Moon Thomas Hardy Holdings Ltd
Andrew Shelton Revolver Brewing Company
Lawraine Prunella Morel Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Darel Jude Simeon Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Stephen Moyo Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Nonkosi Sithole Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Andrea Mugasha Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Andrew John Sokolo Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Aimable Munezero Brasseries Heineken
Nigel Dzikamayi Muringayi Delta Beverages Ltd Elizabeth Stairs University of California
Evelyn Muthoni East African Breweries Ltd Michael Stawniczy Carlsberg UK Ltd
Lloyd Mutimbanyoka Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Darren Edward Stegmann South African Breweries
Dominic Maingi Mutiso East African Breweries Ltd Duncan James Stewart Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd
Gideon Gichuhi Mwangi East African Breweries Ltd Samuel Stults University of California
Stephanie Sabine Ngo Yebga Diageo Global Supply Timothy Michael Symons Lion
Dynes Ngoma Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Nigel Tate Hepworth & Company) Ltd
Samuel Njuki Nile Breweries Ltd Simon Teeling Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Lindiwe Nkosi South African Breweries Limited Phat Thai SABMiller Vietnam
Langelihle Ntloko South African Breweries Limited Dan Thomas Heineken UK Ltd
Obakeng Ntshudisane South African Breweries Deye Tian Canadian Grain Commission
Odion Taiye Odiagah Nigerian Breweries plc Michael Tibagendeka Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Leonard Ifeanyi Offor Nigerian Breweries plc Remon Leopold Tromp Heineken
Vincent Ogbonna Nigerian Breweries plc David Trumbore University of California
Kenneth Ogor Ojeogwu Intafact Beverages Ltd Ross Turner Pure Malt Products Ltd
Oluwafemi Ojowuro Nigerian Breweries plc Melt Dwayne Van der Spuy Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Felix Santos Okumu Nile Breweries Ltd Pauwel Van Nieuwenhove Heineken Nederland BV
Israel Olajide Oribamise Guinness Nigeria plc Juan Alejandro Vasquez University of California
Frederick Ryan Orndorff The Grizzly Paw Brewing Company Tracey Vincent MillerCoors LLC
Dolapo Oshiegbu Guinness Nigeria plc Daniel Vollmer University of California
Stephen O'Sullivan Krones Inc James Richard Wanami East African Breweries Ltd
Joseph Francis Ouma East African Breweries Ltd Mercy Njeri Wanjiku East African Breweries Ltd
Peter Owuor East African Breweries Ltd Seth Wright Harpoon Brewery
Veronique Paradis Laporte Consultants Darren Andrew Young J Boag & Son Brewing Ltd
Neil Partridge IBD International Section
Minh Peart-Tang Little Creatures Brewery
Module 2 Passes
Robert Peter Percival Copper Dragon Brewery
Belen Perez Campden BRI Scott Dominic Abrey Greene King plc
Karl Perpich University of California Oluyomi Adodo Guinness Nigeria plc
Helene Perrotin-Brunel Heineken Group Supply Chain Michael Akman Guinness Ghana Breweries Ltd
Eamonn Power Diageo Global Supply Matthew Anderson Anheuser-Busch InBev
Carl Walther Preiss Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Justin Andrews University of California
Sameer Jaywant Ram SABMiller plc Oluwole David Ayokunle Nigerian Breweries plc
Jonathan Stewart Redman Heineken UK Ltd Joseph Babalola Nigerian Breweries plc
Stanley Roberts III University of California Aline Baert Heineken Entreprise France
Mark Roddy Diageo Global Supply Jennifer Ovue Bakenne Guinness Nigeria plc
Grant M Ruehle New Belgium Brewing Co. Jason Bell Craft Beverage Solutions
Itai Ottilia Rusike Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Timothy John Best Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Jum Ryan Little Creatures Brewery Barbara Boatemaah Guinness Ghana Breweries Ltd
Muthumalaichamy Sakthivel Labatt Breweries of Canada Jeffrey Alan Booth Labatt Breweries of Canada
Glen Andrew Sansom Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Jean-Christophe Cambier Heineken Entreprise France
Pascal Schagen Heineken Nederland BV Andrew Chang University of California
Brandon Gerhard Schmid Rieger Industrial Consultants Subhra Chowdhury United Breweries Limited
Jordan Schupbach University of California Melinda Jane Christophersen Fosters Australia Limited

48 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Peter Keith Clews Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Roselyn Musungu Netia East African Breweries Ltd
Emma Codyre Diageo Global Supply Lateh Genesis Ngala Guinness Cameroon SA
Alexander Combe MillerCoors LLC Eric Ng'Ang'A Nganda East African Breweries Ltd
Nathan Crane University of California Odion Taiye Odiagah Nigerian Breweries plc
Jephthah Yaw Datsomor Guinness Ghana Breweries Ltd Leonard Ifeanyi Offor Nigerian Breweries plc
Thomas Cary Davis IBD Asia Pacific Section Fearghal O'Flaherty Diageo Global Supply
Preston Doris University of California Oluwafemi Ojowuro Nigerian Breweries plc
Bruce Steven Draper Malt Shovel Brewery Pty Ltd Gerald Okol Nile Breweries Ltd
Daryl Eisenbarth University of California Fred Akoko Oluoch East African Breweries Ltd
Nsamba Elias Uganda Breweries Ltd Joseph Francis Ouma East African Breweries Ltd
Olaide Fadahunsi Nigerian Breweries plc Abel Marco Pallangyo Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Nicholas Fodor University of California Minh Peart-Tang Little Creatures Brewery
Alan Paul Charles Fulcher Greene King plc Karl Perpich University of California
Eng Chow Goh Guinness Anchor Berhad Jason Pratt MillerCoors
David Gunn MillerCoors Buyankhishig Purev Asia Pacific Breweries LLC
Scott Nathan Hampton DB Breweries Limited Sameer Jaywant Ram SABMiller plc
John Hensley MillerCoors Paula Michelle Rose Banks (Barbados) Ltd
Jesus Omar Herrera University of California Grant M Ruehle New Belgium Brewing Co.
Marlowe Hoffman University of California Itai Ottilia Rusike Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Marta Horofker IBD International Section Pascal Schagen Heineken Nederland BV
Andrew Wallace Hunter J W Lees & Co (Brewers) Ltd Jordan Schupbach University of California
Ina Ina Igbong Nigerian Breweries plc Andrew Shelton Revolver Brewing Company
Robert Carl Jacobson South African Breweries Erik Sohn University of California
Kenneth Jenkins University of California Mike Spitere Diageo Global Supply
Colin Johnston Tennent Caledonian UK Ltd Subramani Srinivasan Skol Breweries Ltd
Toshihiro Kamada Kirin Brewery Co Ltd Elizabeth Stairs University of California
Sandhea Devi Kiran Fosters Group Pacific Ltd. Darren Edward Stegmann South African Breweries
Micah Krichinsky University of California Samuel Stults University of California
Joseph Kurowski University of California Joseph Tawanda Takayindisa Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Richard Morbe Lado Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd Phortune Tjivikua Namibia Breweries Limited
Melanie Lane Diageo Global Supply Remon Leopold Tromp Heineken
Ankie Langerak Heineken Nederland BV David Trumbore University of California
David Lenske Fosters Australia Limited Daniel Vollmer University of California
Steven Craig Levien Lion Laoise Wallace Diageo Global Supply
Andrew Livingston DSM Carolanne Watkins Heineken UK Ltd
Marcelino Mahassa Cervejas De Mozambique Thomas David Whitehouse Little Creatures Brewery
Joel Makena SAB Limited Tamisha Williams Banks (Barbados) Ltd
Blessing Makunzva Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Phumuzile Yalala Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Paul Mallory University of California
Feargal McVeigh Diageo Global Supply
Module 3 Passes
Garry Menz Fosters Australia Limited
Ivan Stewart Merida Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Oluwatosin Adetula Nigerian Breweries plc
Vivian Kemunto Mogaka East African Breweries Ltd Susheel Kumar Agarwal Skol Breweries Ltd
Ntenne Adelaide Mohlala South African Breweries Justin Andrews University of California
Rachel Refiloe Moilwa South African Breweries Thomas Ashton Steam Brewing Co NZ
Lawraine Prunella Morel Seychelles Breweries Ltd Oluwole David Ayokunle Nigerian Breweries plc
Stephen Moyo Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Joseph Babalola Nigerian Breweries plc
Nigel Dzikamayi Muringayi Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Hardeep Bajwa Skol Breweries Ltd
Lloyd Mutimbanyoka Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Bret Douglas Baker Horizon Milling
Gideon Gichuhi Mwangi East African Breweries Ltd Jason Bell Craft Beverage Solutions

Examiners Report 2012 49

Jacobus Berner South African Breweries Visvanathan Malayalam Carlsberg Malaysia Berhad
Katherine Bexfield Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Paul Mallory University of California
Trinh Thi Thanh Binh Vietnam Brewery Ltd Peter Martin Labatt Breweries of Canada
Akos Istvan Bodos Heineken UK Ltd Feargal McVeigh Diageo Global Supply
Jeffrey Alan Booth Labatt Breweries of Canada Paul Jesse Milly MillerCoors
Craig Brodie Lion Ntenne Adelaide Mohlala South African Breweries
Andrew Bullied Village Brewery Christopher Monahan Lion
Paul Bwamiki Uganda Breweries Ltd Duane Morton Moa Brewing Co
Louis Carrazzone IBD International Section Tumaini Moses Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Farai Jabulani Chaibva Delta Beverages Ltd Mbachan Richard Mudoh Guinness Cameroon SA
Andrew Chang University of California Nigel Dzikamayi Muringayi Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Kay Mun Chey Guinness Anchor Berhad Gideon Muuka Zambian Breweries plc
Jack Chibawe Zambian Breweries plc Rita Nakanwagi Muwonge Nile Breweries Ltd
Nneji Priscilia Chinyere Nigerian Breweries plc Meshack Michael Mwaluko Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Jeffrey Edward Collins Heineken UK Ltd Gideon Gichuhi Mwangi East African Breweries Ltd
Alexander Combe MillerCoors LLC Anil Nair Skol Breweries Ltd
Nathan Crane University of California Wenyin Ng Guinness Anchor Berhad
Sudha Deo Fosters Group Pacific Ltd. Ntsapokazi Ningiza South African Breweries
Preston Doris University of California Daniel Kamau Njuguna East African Breweries Ltd
Daryl Eisenbarth University of California Lindiwe Nkosi South African Breweries
Olaide Fadahunsi Nigerian Breweries plc Ekene Marcus Nwabueze Guinness Nigeria plc
Richard Olatunde Fakunle Guinness Nigeria plc Cynthia Chineye Obietoh Guinness Nigeria plc
Brennan Fleming University of California Esther Ntende Odongol Nile Breweries Ltd
Nicholas Fodor University of California Tim O'Donovan Heineken Ireland
Emma Jane Fowler Diageo Global Supply Leonard Ifeanyi Offor Nigerian Breweries plc
Amgad Sabry Ghaly Heineken - Egypt Vincent Ogbonna Nigerian Breweries plc
James Godman Hopback Brewery plc Godfrey Ogieva Guinness Nigeria plc
Thomas Vincent Graham Harpoon Brewery Gbenga Adeniyi Ogunwale Guinness Nigeria plc
Mary Groah MillerCoors LLC Oluwafemi Ojowuro Nigerian Breweries plc
Katrina Gwirtz Miller Brewing Co Sylva Okechukwu Okpara Nigerian Breweries plc
Quinlan Harris University of California Bolanle John Oladokun Nigerian Breweries plc
Jesus Omar Herrera University of California Patrick O'Neill Diageo Global Supply
David Hill Marstons plc Osemeke Oshiegbu Guinness Nigeria plc
Kirsty Hodge Heineken UK Ltd Joseph Francis Ouma East African Breweries Ltd
Marlowe Hoffman University of California Veronique Paradis Laporte Consultants
Chung Ghee Hum Guinness Anchor Berhad Neil Partridge IBD International Section
Robert Carl Jacobson South African Breweries Minh Peart-Tang Little Creatures Brewery
Lindsey Jamieson Tennent UK Ltd John Gerald Perry Heineken UK Ltd
Kenneth Jenkins University of California Sameer Jaywant Ram SABMiller plc
Jane Kershaw Anheuser-Busch InBev Jonathan Stewart Redman Heineken UK Ltd
Paul Konopelski University of California Sarah Helen Richardson Heineken UK Ltd
Micah Krichinsky University of California Stanley Roberts III University of California
Joseph Kurowski University of California Andrew Rotherham Heineken
Pawel Kwarciak Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd Jeremy Ryan Roza Samuel Adams Brewing Co
Jane Elizabeth Lawton Frederic Robinson Ltd Grant M Ruehle New Belgium Brewing Co.
Luyen Le Thi Thanh Vietnam Brewery Ltd Itai Ottilia Rusike Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Tran Thi Ngoc Loan Vietnam Brewery Ltd Jordan Schupbach University of California
Justin Low University of California Andrew Shelton Revolver Brewing Company
Eric Irungu Macharia East African Breweries Ltd Karli Small South Australian Brewing Co
Marcelino Mahassa Cervejas De Mozambique Erik Sohn University of California

50 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Elizabeth Stairs University of California Chung Ghee Hum Guinness Anchor Berhad
Darren Edward Stegmann South African Breweries Andrew Wallace Hunter J W Lees & Co (Brewers) Ltd
Samuel Stults University of California Robert Carl Jacobson South African Breweries
Aaron Taubman MillerCoors Kenneth Jenkins University of California
Sefothane Tefo Lesotho Brewing Company Colin Johnston Tennent Caledonian UK Ltd
Pooi Mun Tiong Napex Corporation Son. BHD Jane Kershaw Anheuser-Busch InBev
David Trumbore University of California Micah Krichinsky University of California
Juan Alejandro Vasquez University of California Joseph Kurowski University of California
Daniel Vollmer University of California Jane Elizabeth Lawton Frederic Robinson Ltd
James Richard Wanami East African Breweries Ltd Tran Thi Ngoc Loan Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Stephen Michael Waygood Heineken UK Ltd Marcelino Mahassa Cervejas De Mozambique
Wenyan Zhang DB Breweries Limited Blessing Makunzva Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Visvanathan Malayalam Carlsberg Malaysia Berhad
Paul Mallory University of California
AWARDED DIPLOMA IN BREWING QUALIFICATION
HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES Peter Martin Labatt Breweries of Canada
Feargal McVeigh Diageo Global Supply

Oluwatosin Adetula Nigerian Breweries plc Ivan Stewart Merida Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd

Susheel Kumar Agarwal Skol Breweries Ltd Paul Jesse Milly MillerCoors

Justin Andrews University of California Ntenne Adelaide Mohlala South African Breweries

Thomas Ashton Steam Brewing Co NZ Christopher Monahan Lion

Oluwole David Ayokunle Nigerian Breweries plc Mbachan Richard Mudoh Guinness Cameroon SA

Joseph Babalola Nigerian Breweries plc Nigel Dzikamayi Muringayi Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd

Jennifer Ovue Bakenne Guinness Nigeria plc Rita Nakanwagi Muwonge Nile Breweries Ltd

Jason Bell Craft Beverage Solutions Meshack Michael Mwaluko Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Jacobus Berner South African Breweries Gideon Gichuhi Mwangi East African Breweries Ltd

Trinh Thi Thanh Binh Vietnam Brewery Ltd Anil Nair Skol Breweries Ltd
Jeffrey Alan Booth Labatt Breweries of Canada Wenyin Ng Guinness Anchor Berhad

Craig Brodie Lion Eric Ng'Ang'A Nganda East African Breweries Ltd

Louis Carrazzone IBD International Section Cynthia Chineye Obietoh Guinness Nigeria plc
Farai Jabulani Chaibva Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Tim O'Donovan Heineken Ireland
Andrew Chang University of California Leonard Ifeanyi Offor Nigerian Breweries plc
Jack Chibawe Zambian Breweries plc Godfrey Ogieva Guinness Nigeria plc
Nneji Priscilia Chinyere Nigerian Breweries plc Gbenga Adeniyi Ogunwale Guinness Nigeria plc
Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Oluwafemi Ojowuro Nigerian Breweries plc
Peter Keith Clews Ltd
Sylva Okechukwu Okpara Nigerian Breweries plc
Alexander Combe MillerCoors LLC
Bolanle John Oladokun Nigerian Breweries plc
Nathan Crane University of California
Fred Akoko Oluoch East African Breweries Ltd
Thomas Cary Davis IBD Asia Pacific Section
Osemeke Oshiegbu Guinness Nigeria plc
Sudha Deo Fosters Group Pacific Ltd.
Dolapo Oshiegbu Guinness Nigeria plc
Preston Doris University of California
Joseph Francis Ouma East African Breweries Ltd
Daryl Eisenbarth University of California
Minh Peart-Tang Little Creatures Brewery
Nsamba Elias Uganda Breweries Ltd
Sameer Jaywant Ram SABMiller plc
Olaide Fadahunsi Nigerian Breweries plc
Sarah Helen Richardson Heineken UK Ltd
Nicholas Fodor University of California
Andrew Rotherham Heineken
James Godman Hopback Brewery plc
Jeremy Ryan Roza Samuel Adams Brewing Co
Thomas Vincent Graham Harpoon Brewery
Grant M Ruehle New Belgium Brewing Co.
Mary Groah MillerCoors LLC
Itai Ottilia Rusike Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Katrina Gwirtz Miller Brewing Co
Muthumalaichamy Sakthivel Labatt Breweries of Canada
Jesus Omar Herrera University of California
Jordan Schupbach University of California
David Hill Marstons plc
Andrew Shelton Revolver Brewing Company
Marlowe Hoffman University of California

Examiners Report 2012 51

 Karli Small South Australian Brewing Co Module 3 Passes

Erik Sohn University of California Karen Bell Diageo Global Supply

Mike Spitere Diageo Global Supply Elaine Campbell Diageo Global Supply
Subramani Srinivasan Skol Breweries Ltd Richard Anthony Cowley Diageo Global Supply
Elizabeth Stairs University of California Shona Glancy Scotch Whisky Research Inst.
Darren Edward Stegmann South African Breweries Jaime Jordan Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Samuel Stults University of California Eoin Mclaughlin Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Aaron Taubman MillerCoors Robert McWilliam Bairds Malt Ltd
Sefothane Tefo Lesotho Brewing Company James O'Callaghan Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Pooi Mun Tiong Napex Corporation Son. BHD Eoin O'Keeffe Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Phortune Tjivikua Namibia Breweries Limited Emily Jane Paff Victoria Valley Distillery
David Trumbore University of California Alan Rettie Chivas Brothers Ltd
Daniel Vollmer University of California Shona Schroeder Bundaberg
Stephen Michael Waygood Heineken UK Ltd Sam Slaney IBD Asia Pacific Section
Barry Hunter Turnbull Diageo Global Supply
Murray Orr Wiseman Diageo Global Supply
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING

Module 1 Passes
AWARDED DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING QUALIFICATION
Peter Barry Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES

Georgina Bell Scotch Malt Whisky Society

Karen Bell Diageo Global Supply
Oskar Bruno Grythyttan Whisky
Debbie Sarah Briody William Grant & Sons Ltd
Flavien Desoblin Brandy Library Lounge
Elaine Campbell Diageo Global Supply
Richard Hendry Diageo Global Supply
Mncedisi Sisekelo Gama USA Distillers
Tomasz Kapela IBD International Section
Shona Glancy Scotch Whisky Research Inst.
Nick Kebalo Diageo Canada Inc
Jaime Jordan Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Siphokazi Majozi NCP Alcohols
Paul McCarthy Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard Stephen John McHugh Bundaberg

Stephen McHugh Bundaberg Robert McWilliam Bairds Malt Ltd

Samuel Alan Mckibbin Diageo Global Supply Alan Rettie Chivas Brothers Ltd
William Morrissey Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard Shona Schroeder Bundaberg
Joanne Louise Reavley Diageo Global Supply Duncan McNab Stewart Diageo Global Supply
Jill Adele Savage Diageo Global Supply Rosalind Priscilla Alexandra Thomas Old Bushmills Distillery Co.
Diane Jane Stuart Scotch Whisky Research Inst. Barry Hunter Turnbull Diageo Global Supply
Rosalind Priscilla Alexandra Thomas Old Bushmills Distillery Co. Ltd Murray Orr Wiseman Diageo Global Supply
Barry Hunter Turnbull Diageo Global Supply
Sarah Watson Diageo Australia Ltd
DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING

Module 2 Passes Module 1 Passes

Georgina Bell Scotch Malt Whisky Society Aderemi Oluwasogo Adewoye Guinness Nigeria plc
Debbie Sarah Briody William Grant & Sons Ltd Richard Adasom Afesi Guinness Ghana Breweries
Flavien Desoblin Brandy Library Lounge Joseph Agbogla Guinness Ghana Breweries
Mncedisi Sisekelo Gama USA Distillers Hung Duong Quoc Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Tomasz Kapela IBD International Section Scott Hayward Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
John McCarthy Adnams & Co plc Benjamin Hince Heineken UK Ltd
Joanne Louise Reavley Diageo Global Supply Stephen Jensen Lion
Duncan McNab Stewart Diageo Global Supply Emmanuel Kealeboga SABMiller Africa and Asia Ltd
Barry Hunter Turnbull Diageo Global Supply Hussein Ally Kitilinga Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Mary Margaret Westwater North British Distillery Ltd Philip Christopher Knowles Thomas Hardy Holdings Ltd

52 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Enock Kohwai Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Module 2 Passes
Julian Michael Markham Daniel Thwaites plc
Angelberta Mashingaidze Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Geoffrey Keith Davis Lion

Djony Efendi Mashur PT Multi Bintang Indonesia Taw Han Win Diageo Global Supply

Arno Matthee South African Breweries

Christopher Morgan Molson Coors Canada
Module 3 Passes
Ashir Mori Southern Sudan Beverages
James Mulenga Zambian Breweries plc Shun Chiun Chong Guinness Anchor Berhad
Chishimba Mumba Zambian Breweries plc Richard Gunn Lion
Chisanga Justin Mutale Zambian Breweries plc Patrick Kerr Diageo Global Supply
Idowu Oladayiye International Breweries plc Brian Penney Molson Coors Brewing (UK)
Isaac Ongora Nile Breweries Ltd Wee Ann See Guinness Anchor Berhad
Ikenna Emmanuel Oranusih Guinness Nigeria plc Bruce Turner Meantime Brewing Company
Victor Phiri Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd Taw Han Win Diageo Global Supply
Gareth Brian Price Heineken UK Ltd
Haig Rusike Delta Beverages (Private) Ltd
Sreenath S.R. Skol Breweries Ltd AWARDED DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING
Kenneth Jay Saunders Molson Coors Canada QUALIFICATION HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES

Eduardo Schubert Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Shun Chiun Chong Guinness Anchor Berhad
David Thurston Heineken UK Ltd
Patrick Kerr Diageo Global Supply
Hiderson Vicente Cervejas De Mozambique
Brian Penney Molson Coors Brewing (UK)
Kristin Wellman Craft Brewers Alliance
Wee Ann See Guinness Anchor Berhad
Samuel Asiamah Yeboah Accra Brewery Ltd
Bruce Turner Meantime Brewing Company
Taw Han Win Diageo Global Supply

Examiners Report 2012 53

 The Institute of Brewing and Distilling
www.ibd.org.uk

54 Institute of Brewing and Distilling