2014 Examiner Report

REPORT FROM

THE EXAMINERS

2014

Qualifications

2

EXAMINERS REPORT 2014

Table of Contents

Statistics Page 3

Examination Centres Page 4

Award Winners Page 6

Report from the Chair Page 8

Master Brewer Page 10

Diploma in Brewing 2

Diploma in Packaging Page 39

Diploma in Distilling Page 64

Fundamental and General Certificate Page 74

List of Successful Candidates Page 76

3

The Statistics

The number of candidates who sat each module (numbers for 2013, 2012 in parentheses)

Diploma in Brewing:

Candidates Average Mark Pass Rate

Dipl Brew 1 358 (410, 287) 45.9% (49.7%, 46%) 57.3% (71.2%, 61%)

Dipl Brew 2 338 (287, 209) 40.7% (43.1%, 42%) 43.8% (53.3%, 50%)

Dipl Brew 3 205 (183, 174) 46.2% (51.8%, 55%) 52.7% (63.9%, 70%)

Overall 901 (880, 670) 44.0% (48.0%, 47.1%) 51.2% (63.8%, 59.9%)

A total of 94 (107, 98) candidates were awarded their Diploma in Brewing.

Diploma in Distilling:


Dipl Distil 1 33 (38, 21 53.9% (57.9%, 62%) 81.8% (89.5%, 86%)

Dipl Distil 2 35 (31, 14) 47.5% (46.4%, 55%) 60.0% (58.1%, 71%)

Dipl Distil 3 20 (16, 20) 57.8% (56.3%, 55%) 75.0% (81.3%, 75%)

Overall 88 (85, 55) 52.2% (52.8%, 57.7%) 71.6% (73.3%, 78.2%)

A total of 9 (11, 14) candidates were awarded their Diploma in Distilling.

Diploma in Packaging:


Dipl Pack 1 65 (32, 38) 55% (58%) 66% (68.8%)

Dipl Pack 2 23 (33, 2) 57% (56%) 65% (82%)

Dipl Pack 3 28 (1, 9) 62% (--) 92% (100%)

Overall 116 (66, 49) 57% (57%) 72% (76%)

22 candidates (1) were awarded their Diploma in Packaging!

Master Brewer:


MB1 33 (34, 41) 51.7% (51.2%, 54%) 45.5% (55.9%, 51%)

MB2 16 (40, 43) 53.1% (52.8%, 52%) 56.3% (55.0%, 58%)

MB3 23 (27, 25) 51.0% (50.5%, 59%) 47.8% (48.1%, 60%)

MB4 22 (18, 16) 58% (52.1%, 61%) 72.7% (61.1%, 88%)

MB5 7 (16, 10) 86% (100%, 90%)

Overall 101 (135, 135) 53.2% (51.7% (54.7%) 54.2% (60.0%, 62.2%)

A total of 8 (15, 6) candidates were awarded their Master Brewer.

4

The Exam Centres Australia Abbotsford VIC-Carlton United Breweries

Adelaide SA-Lion

Albany WA-Great Southern Instit. of Technology

Brisbane QLD-Lion

Brisbane QLD-Queensland University of Technology

Bundaberg QLD-Bundaberg Distilling Co.

Cairns QLD-James Cook University

Hobart TAS-University of Tasmania

Launceston TAS-University of Tasmania

Lidcombe NSW-Tooheys Pty Limited

Melbourne VIC-University of Melbourne

Perth Bentley WA-Curtin University

Regency Park SA-TAFESA

Sydney NSW-Language & Testing Consultant

Warnervale NSW-Carlton United Brewerie

Yenda NSW-Casella Wines Pty Ltd

Barbados St Michael-Ministry of Education

Belgium Brussels-ECB Examination Centre

Botswana Gaborone-SABMiller

Brazil Rio de Janeiro -Senai Rio de Janeiro

Burundi Bujumbura-Brarudi (Heineken)

Cameroun Douala-Guinness Cameroun SA

Canada Calgary AB-University of Calgary

Charlottetown PE-Holland College

Niagara-on-the-Lake ON-Niagara College

Ottawa ON-Academy of Learning

Toronto ON-MolsonCoors Canada

Vancouver BC- BCIT

Winnipeg MB-Assiniboine Community College

China Hong Kong-British Council

Shanghai-British Council

Congo Pointe Noire- Brasco Heineken

Czech Republic Plzen-Plzensky Prazdroj (SABMiller)

DR Congo Boma-Bralima Heineken

Bukavu-Bralima Heineken

Kinshasa-Bralima Heineken

Lubumbashi-Bralima Heineken

Dominica Roseau-University of West Indies

Ethiopia Addis Ababa-Heineken Breweries SC

Fiji Suva-Paradise Beverages Ltd

France Albertville-Jeunes Diplomates

Lyon-CFPPA de Macon-Davaye

Paris-American University of Paris

Germany Munich-Cambridge Institute

Ghana Accra-British Council

Guernsey St Peter Port-Guernsey College of Further Education

Greece Athens-British Council

Thessaloniki-British Council

Grenada St George-Grenada Breweries

Hungary Budapest-Dreher Breweries

Iceland Akureyri-University of Akureyri

Reykjavik-Reykjavik University

India Aurangabad-SABMiller (Central India Centre)

Bangalore-SABMiller (South India Centre)

Harayana Gurgaon-Carlsberg India

Khordha Odisha State-United Breweries

Sonepat-SABMiller HBL (North India Centre)

Tangerang-PT Multi Bintang

Ireland Cork-The Gresham Metropole

Cork-The Training Centre

Dublin-Dublin Hilton Hotel

Dublin-The Exam Centre

Waterford-Metalman Brewing

Italy Rome-Birra Peroni

Rome-British Council

Jamaica Kingston-Red Stripe

Kingston-University of West Indies

Japan Tokyo-Temple University Japan Campus

Yokohama-Kirin Brewery Co.

Kenya Nairobi-British Council

Lesotho Maseru-Lesotho Brewing Company

Malaysia Kuala Lumpur-British Council

Singapore-British Council

Mozambique Maputo-Cervejas de Mozambique SA

Netherlands Zoeterwoude-Heineken

New Zealand Auckland-Lion

Auckland-University of Otago

Christchurch-Christchurch Polytechnic

Dunedin-Lion Nathan

Nelson-Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology

Nigeria Abuja-British Council

Ibadan-Nigerian Breweries

Kaduna-Nigerian Breweries

Lagos-British Council

Lagos-Guinness

Osun State-SAB International Breweries

Norway Oslo-Folkeuniversitetet

Panama Cerveceria Nacional S.A.

Peru Lima-Union de Cervecerias Peruanas Backus

5

Romania Bucharest-British Council

Russia Ulyanovsk-Efes Russia

Rwanda Kigali-Bralirwa Heineken

Samoa Apia-Samoa Breweries

Seychelles Mahe-Ministry of Education

Sierra Leone Freetown-British Council

Solomon Islands Honiara-Solomon Breweries Ltd

South Africa Cape Town-SAB

Durban-Diageo Global Supply

Johannesburg-SAB World of Learning

Port Elizabeth-SAB

Spain Gran Canaria-Las Palmas-.Cervecera de Canarias

South Sudan Juba-Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd – SAB

St Lucia Vieux Fort-Heineken

St Vincent Kingstown-St Vincent Brewery

Swaziland Matsapha-Swaziland Beverages –SAB

Sweden Malmo-Purity Vodka AB

Stockholm-Folkuniversitetet

Switzerland Bern-British Council

Tanzania Dar Es Salaam-University of Dar es Salaam

Thailand Bangkok-Thai Asia Pacific Brewery Co Ltd

Nakorn Phathom-Boon Rawd Brewery

Trinidad Champs Fleurs-Caribbean Development Co.

Laventille-Angostura

Tunisia Grombalia-Sonobra Heineken

Turkey Istanbul-British Council

UAE Dubai-British Council

Uganda Jinja-Nile Breweries Limited -SAB

Kampala-EABL Uganda Breweries

United Kingdom Bristol-City of Bristol College

- England Burton on Trent-Molson Coors Brewers Ltd

Hereford-Heineken

Ledbury-Universal Beverages

London-Institute of Brewing & Distilling

Manchester-Arora Hotel

Manchester-Heineken

Northampton-Carlsberg

Penryn Cornwall-Rebel Brewing Co.

Plymouth-The Business Space

Suffolk-Greene King

Tadcaster-Heineken

United Kingdom Edinburgh-Heriot Watt University

- Scotland Elgin-Moray College UHI

Inverness-Inverness College UHI

Jura-Jura Distillery

Orkney-Orkney College

United Kingdom Bushmills-Old Bushmills Distillery

- N. Ireland

United Kingdom Magor-AB-Inbev UK Limited

- Wales

United States Albany GA-MillerCoors

of America Arcata CA-Humboldt State University

Arlington TX-University of Texas

Boston MA-University of Massachusetts Boston

Brevard NC-Blue Ridge Community College

Bridgewater Corners VT-Long Trail Brewing Co.

Chattanooga TN-University of Tennessee

Cincinnati OH-UC Testing Services

Davis CA-University of California

Eden NC-Miller Coors

Edwardsville IL- Southern Illinois University

Elkton VA-Miller Coors

Farmington ME- University of Maine

Fort Worth TX-MillerCoors

Glen Ellyn IL-College of DuPage

Golden CO-Miller Coors

Holland MI-New Holland Brewing Co.

Houston TX-University of Houston Clear Lake

Irwindale CA-Miller Coors

Kansas City, MO-Boulevard Brewing Co

Madison WI-University of Wisconsin-MBAA

Maryland MD-Frederick Community College

Miami FL-Miami Dade College

Milwaukee WI-Miller Coors

New York NY-Cambridge Business Institute

New York NY-Technical Institute of America

Norfolk VA-Old Dominion University

Northridge CA-California State University

Oregon OR-Oregon State University

Overland Park KS-Johnson County Comm. College

Philadelphia PA-Temple University

Portsmouth NH-Craft Brew Alliance, Inc

Provo, UT-Brigham Young University

Seattle WA-Seattle Central Community College

Wentworth NC-Rockingham Community College

Windsor, VT-Harpoon Brewery

Woodinville WA-Craft Brewers Alliance

Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City-British Council

Zambia Lusaka-Zambian Breweries

Ndola-Zambian Breweries Plc – SAB

Zimbabwe Bulawayo-Delta Beverages -SAB

Harare-Delta Beverages - SAB

Our thanks to all the breweries, distilleries and educational establishments that hosted IBD examinations during 2014.

A total of 179 centres were made available across 64 countries. Thanks also to the staff and volunteers who acted as invigilators.

6

Award Winners 2014

MASTER BREWER AWARD

James S Hough Award

Bhavya Mandanna Carlsberg UK - Midland Section

DIPLOMA IN BREWING

John S Ford Award - Overall Diploma in Brewing Award

Kavir Parthab South African Breweries Limited - Africa Section

Wiliams Ozowe Nigerian Breweries - Africa Section

Crisp Malting Award (Dipl. Brew 1)

Temitayo Bankole Nigerian Breweries – Africa Section

Brewery Engineers Award (Dipl. Brew 3)

Temitayo Bankole Nigerian Breweries – Africa Section

DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING

Worshipful Company of Distillers Scholarship Award - Overall Diploma in Distilling Award

Kwanele Mdluli Diageo – Scottish Section

Simpsons Malt Award (Dipl. Dist 1)

Karan Singh South Pacific Distillery - Asia Pacific Section

Worshipful Company of Distillers (Dipl. Dist 2)

Alan Wardlaw Diageo – Scottish Section

Briggs of Burton Award (Dipl. Dist 3)

Norma Bruce Diageo – Scottish Section

DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING

Quinn Award (Dipl. Pack 1)

Jodie Murdoch Carlton & United Breweries - Asia Pacific Section

MicroMatic Award (Dipl. Pack 2)

Patrick Ongom Nile Breweries, Uganda - Africa Section

Brewery Engineers Award (Dipl. Pack 3)

James Mulenga Zambian Breweries – Africa Section

GENERAL CERTIFICATE AWARDS

Worshipful Company of Brewers, GCB – Livery Companies

Peter Fellows Marstons

Worshipful Company of Brewers Award, GCB

Patrick Bois

Worshipful Company of Brewers Award, CGP

Bethan Parry Fuller Smith & Turner Plc – Southern Section

Scotch Whisky Association Award, GCD

Niall Fitzgerald Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard

FUNDAMENTALS AWARDS

Worshipful Company of Distillers, FD

Graeme Horne Glen Turner Distillery Ltd

7

1661

1890

2269

2770 2815

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fundamentals

General Certificates

Diploma in Brewing

Diploma in Distilling

Diploma in Packaging

Mbrew

Total Applicants

8

REPORT FROM THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

Looking back

The take up of the IBD examinations remains in rude health with a total of 2,815 papers sat (a small increase over the 2770 in

2013). Pleasingly, within the Master Brewer and Diploma portfolio there were eight new Master Brewers, with ninety-four gaining

the Diploma in Brewing, twenty-two the Diploma in Packaging (up from one!) and nine for the Diploma in Distilling.

As ever, the global reach of the IBD is reflected in the awards to the best candidates passing various examinations range across the

portfolio from Fundamentals of Distilling through to the James Hough award for the best overall candidate in the Master Brewer.

There were some standout performances with 17 awards awarded to candidates from Scotland (4), England (3), Nigeria (2),

Australia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Uganda and Zambia. The collective Board of Examiners (BOE) sends its hearty

congratulations to all award winners and of course all candidates who were successful in the 2014 diet of examinations.

In terms of number of candidates sitting examinations, the Diploma’s in Brewing and Distilling exhibited small increases in

numbers, the Master Brewer dropped markedly (down from 135 to 101) whereas the Diploma in Packaging stepped up

significantly (from sixty-six to 116). Notably of the 901 candidates sitting the Diploma in Brewing Modules, eighty-five were

examined in French.

As ever there were a number of new developments in 2014. Notably examining all three Diploma in Brewing Modules in French

and the translation of the General Certificate question banks into Spanish (Brewing) and Japanese (Brewing and Packaging).

Toward the end of the year, the way forward was agreed for the development of two new examinations - the Master Distiller and

the Diploma in Malting (in collaboration with the Maltsters’ Association of Great Britain aka MAGB). Both are planned for launch

in 2016.

Examiner feedback

Numbers are always open to misinterpretation or ‘spin’. That said I’m hopefully on safe ground in making the following

observation from the results of 900 or so Candidates that sat modules in the Diploma in Brewing. For all three Modules the pass

rate was 10% or so lower than in 2013. There are doubtless a host of reasons for this but the observation (below) from the

Examiners of Module 1 caught my eye.

‘This year the quality of candidates presenting themselves for this examination was more polarized than ever before. Many of the

candidates were ill prepared and had clearly not looked at the previous papers and comments in the examiners reports. On the

positive side there were a number of very good candidates and that is reflected in the marks at the top end of the scale’.

So, what can be done? I guess dear reader if you’re reading this there’s a fair chance you've already got it! The Examiners Report

is a treasure trove of general and specific feedback from the examination teams. This is a ‘must read’ for all candidates (and

mentors) providing question-by-question detail from the Examiners setting and marking the questions. Further the Examiners

reflect on success and ‘also what to do’ and ‘what to do better’. Regrettably the ‘what to do better’ is a little fuller this time out, as

the same general themes come up once again. The messages can be headlined and are captured in the below table that flags once

more the key things for candidates to pick up on.

Examiners feedback MBrew DipBrew DipDistil DipPack

Read the question ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Answer the question you are asked ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Avoid being vague or wooly ✓ ✓ ✓

Read around – don’t limit yourself to revision notes ✓ ✓

Record questions answered – in order – on the front of the booklet ✓

Manage your time v marks on offer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Diagrams – practice, suitably sized and annotated ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Do not try and question spot – the whole syllabus is being examined ✓ ✓

9

My personal enthusiasm is lack of reading around and over-dependency on learning materials/revision notes for preparation.

Indeed the worrying trend has continued this year of learning this information word for word, and regurgitating it back as an

examination answer is very strongly discouraged. These notes are simply supportive and require to be embellished with

contemporary review articles in the Brewer and Distiller International (BDI) and elsewhere. An excellent and increasingly

expansive resource of learning material can be found at the IBD Learning Zone via www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk/.

In addition, useful and readable resources for Candidates can be found at www.ibd.org.uk/qualifications/examinations/. These

include the one pager ‘preparing for success’ and a Candidates Welcome Pack which provides an overview of ‘all things

examinations’. This is a ‘living document’ and includes guidance on preparation, study, training and mentoring.

Looking forward

As noted last time the IBD was about to embark on a strategic and structural review of the Diploma in Brewing and inevitably the

wider Diploma portfolio. After many months of reflection, discussion and occasionally impassioned debate within the BOE, our

Diploma examinations ‘proposals for change’ are ready for airing. Inevitably there have been compromises but the proposals

pretty much hit the spot in terms of reshaping the Diploma portfolio and updating the content and the examination approach. As

noted in December’s BDI article ‘Knowledge from Understanding: An Overview of IBD Examinations’ the plan is for the proposals

to be communicated globally for comment and feedback via the Brewer and Distiller International and directly to company

contacts and ‘key opinion formers’. In addition, the proposals will posted on the IBD website and flagged via the weekly IBD

newsletter, and the IBD Twitter and Linkedin accounts. These are important proposals so please have your say and share your

constructive feedback (contact details below).

Examiners

I’m biased but all the Examiners do a tremendous job! This year though I would like to recognize the Diploma in Brewing Modu le

3 team consisting of two new examiners - Phil Worsley and Gary Freeman - who together with Moderator Andrew Barker

examined a record number (205) of candidates. Similarly a big ‘thank you’ to the French Dipl. Brew team of Marc Schmitt and new

examiners Yahia Chabane , André Dillman and Jean-Michel Gualano for delivering the full examination for the first time.

The BOE continues to develop in terms of mix, experience and diversity. The ‘Examiner Without Portfolio’ approach enables

potential examiners to be gently introduced into the hurly-burly of the BOE without the immediate responsibility of setting and

marking scripts. I am delighted that a number of EWP’s (!) were part of the BOE examination setting sessions recently. They will

hopefully go on to see the rest of this year’s cycle with a view to potentially joining one of the teams. The BOE is always looking

for potential recruits. Please make contact if you’re interested in knowing more.

Thanks

The process that delivers IBD examinations is increasingly complex and demanding. Huge thanks are due to the Curlew Street

team who manage the interaction with candidates and pull together the logistics, locations, scripts and generally make things

happen in a timely and efficient way. Thanks are also due to the good people at examination centres who coordinate, arrange and

invigilate. My thanks to all my colleagues in the Board of Examiners for their steadfast commitment, good humour,

professionalism and end-to-end delivery of IBD examinations. It is also important to acknowledge the support of the IBD Council

and immediate past and present Presidents, Alan Barclay and Charlie Bamforth. Finally a big personal thank you to Steve Curtis,

Simon Jackson and Shane McNamara at the IBD for their fellowship, unceasing hard work and shared vision of ‘what good looks

like’ for IBD examinations.

I would welcome any feedback good or bad, big or small on IBD examinations. This is especially welcome with regard to the

Diploma portfolio proposals and from members who would like to know more – without commitment – of potentially becoming

an Examiner.

David Quain (please contact via [email protected])

mailto:[email protected]

10

MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2014

Module 1: Materials & Wort Production

The module was sat by 33 candidates, compared with 34 candidates in 2013 and 41 candidates in 2012. The pass rate for the

examination this year was 45.5%. This compares with a pass rate in 2013 of 55.9% and 2012 of 51%.

The average mark for all candidates was 51.7%. This compares with an average mark of 51.2% in 2013 and 54% in 2012.

The grade distribution was as follows:

A: 0%

B: 6%

C: 15%

D: 24%

E: 33%

F: 21%

Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice

The marks for paper 1 ranged from 35/100 to 85/100, with an average of 58.1 marks.

Barley, the malting process and adjuncts

This section was answered slightly better than in last year’s exam, though for the less well prepared candidates, ignorance of

barley agronomy is still very evident. The lack of knowledge about malt types is apparent in all papers, nevertheless questions

about adjuncts were answered very well.

Hops and hop products

Several candidates were unable to deal with a serious outbreak of verticillium wilt, but were on surer ground for the other hop-

related questions.

Supply and treatment of water supply

The question about the structure of a borehole system was only moderately well answered despite being featured in a recent

article in the IBD’s Brewer & Distiller International magazine. Candidates were however well versed in legislation as it applies to

water used for brewing beer, but barely aware of the purpose of a trickling filter.

Brewhouse operations

In this section once again the calculation of malt grist was the most inaccurately answered question, with many candidates

apparently ignoring the moisture in the malt as delivered. The calculation of hop grist only fared slightly better, with a couple of

candidates misplacing the decimal point and ending up potentially brewing a beer with ten times the required amount of hops.

Brewhouse Management

Fewer than 20% of candidates calculated correctly the numbers of brews that could be carried out in a week, though a similar

number were out by one brew. The key to this computation is to work out which stage in the process is the longest and thus is the

rate limiting stage. The time this step takes to carry out is then the cycle time of successive brews. Finally it is necessary to take

into account the extra time required at the start of the week for the cycle to get established and that required at the end of the

week to run out the last brew. It is possible that a similar question might be asked in next year’s exam; I urge all budding

candidates to revise this aspect carefully.

The questions about keeping an inventory of malt at a brewery, about management accounts and about the objectives of carrying

out an audit on a supplier were answered particularly well this year. The brewhouse uses a lot of energy to make wort; much of

this energy is produced from fossil fuels and thus contributes to carbon dioxide emissions. Not many answers identified the

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Instrument as not being part of the Kyoto Protocol.

Paper 2: Long Questions

1. Debate the merits of analytical parameters which are used to measure the quality of malt.

Which seven are critical for lager malt and which seven are critical for ale malt?

11

Explain why these parameters are at the top of the list for the malt purchased in a brewery.

This question was attempted by 17 candidates with an average mark of 12.0. Pass rate was 65%. Those that passed this question

did so competently, though few touched on the less mundane analyses such as tolerances for pesticides or NDMA content and

surprisingly, barley variety. There was reluctance, once having listed the seven most important analyses, to go into much detail

about the reasons for their importance. This section of the question is intended to draw out experience of practical brewing,

which is an important objective of this exam. For example at a brewery I once worked in, the building engineers determined that

a curtain wall in the malt silo room could not be protected from explosion by the use of vents. The brewery was given consent to

continue using the silo room as long as the dust specification of incoming malt was kept below a critical level.

2. Specify the plant required to treat water, at the lowest possible cost, which is obtained from a borehole that has this

composition: sodium 50mg/l, calcium 250mg/l, magnesium 50mg/l, nitrate 50mg/l chloride 30mg/l, sulphate 300mg/l,

carbonate 150mg/l and silicate not determined.

This water will be used for brewing a pale lager type beer, for cleaning-in-place (CIP)

systems and as boiler-feed water.

This question was attempted by 13 candidates with an average mark of 11.9. Pass rate was 54%. There were hardly any competent

answers to this question and the overall pass rate was mediocre. Would be Master Brewers need to know how their water

purification systems work in reasonable detail, including pros and cons. For instance those who selected de-ionisation as their

preferred process failed to mention the need for delivery handling and storage of strong acids and strong alkalis. Once again

experience of issues in your working life would illuminate a really good answer. I have experienced the devastating effects of

phenol contamination of de-ioniser acid on the flavour of finished beer, as a result of which a sample of all acid being delivered

had to be neutralised and checked by smell for the presence of contaminants.

3. Describe the various ways hops can be used to bring diverse flavour and aroma

characteristics to different styles of beer. Explain the significance of the different varieties

of hops as well as the various hop products available.

This question was attempted by 24 candidates with an average mark of 13.6. Pass rate was 83%. A popular question and the best

answered by the many who attempted it. In other words, those who passed it did so with flying colours! The improvement in the

quality of answers to questions on hops in this exam has mirrored the worldwide reawakening of interest in the value of hops for

their flavour and aroma qualities. Manifestly some candidates had read my exhortations in last year’s report and mentioned the

use of dry hopping.

4. What are the key aspects of conditioning, milling, mashing-in and mash conversion of

barley malt? Describe how process consistency is maintained for each of these operations.

This question was attempted by 25 candidates with an average mark of 11.2. Pass rate was 48%. Another popular question though

not particularly well answered. Conditioning malt with either water or steam prior to milling is becoming more commonly

practised but most candidates failed to discuss the topic and of those that did, there was scant mention of the benefits the

process brings.

Considering how vital these processes are to the production of quality wort, even some of the better answers were lacklustre in

detail and description, and for many, maintaining process consistency in these operations was not well elucidated.

5. ‘Problems with flavour stability and non-biological haze stability are better dealt with in the brewhouse than on the

packaging line’. Discuss this statement and explain some of the factors which can be controlled in the brewhouse to improve

both the flavour stability and non-biological haze stability of long shelf-life packaged beer.

This question was attempted by 31 candidates with an average mark of 11.2. Pass rate was 55%. This was the most popular

question in the exam, but only just over half gained the pass mark. Most answers were let down by the narrowness of the

approach, only mentioning a few factors that can be controlled. Extra marks could have been picked up by spreading the net wider

to include raw materials such as Null-lox barley (staling enzyme LOX bred out), and ProAnt barley (proanthocyanidin producing

genes eliminated); brewhouse processes such as wet milling to reduce potential oxidative reactions taking place in the grist; and

measures to reduce reactive oxygen species in wort. That is not an exhaustive list of possible factors!

12

6. Describe measures that would improve unsatisfactory extract yields. Discuss the risks to

product quality that these measures may present.

This question was attempted by 22 candidates with an average mark of 8.5. Pass rate was 32%. In many respects the answers to

this question were let down by pretty much the same things as the previous questions. Brewhouse extract yields investigations

need a root, branch and leaf approach. Too many candidates homed in on very narrow issues like mashing and wort separation.

Scrutiny starts with correct weigh bridge checks on incoming deliveries through malt tipper calibration, excess dust in the malt,

losses at the de-stoner and malt analysis. None of these scrutinies are likely to risk product quality, but changes to downstream

processes might. Few answers attempted any risk assessment of proposed alterations; fewer still proposed how any resultant

quality deterioration could be mitigated.

Bob Illingworth

Module 2 – Fermentation and Beer Processing





A: 0%

B: 0%

C: 18%

D: 38%

E: 38%

F: 6%



There were 3 very good papers, 4 good papers, 2 disappointing papers and the rest were clustered around the minimum standard.

This paper covers the whole syllabus. The better candidates were able to answer questions across the whole paper with a wider

spread of knowledge. There were some questions that a few candidates did not read carefully enough and gave inappropriate

answers – the question on stock holding levels brought a few answers on how to measure vessel contents; the question on

product safety was wrongly answered with personal safety precautions; and the one on yeast cropping had some answers relating

to storage and some relating to yeast selection.

Candidates should note that where a question asks for a specific number of responses, and more are offered, they will be marked

in the order supplied up to the required number and extra answers will be ignored. Candidates should therefore read the

questions carefully.


There was one good paper, 4 comfortable passes, 4 disappointing papers and the rest were clustered around the minimum

standard. Some candidates were clearly not prepared for an examination at this level, with a lack of practical knowledge and

limited breadth of experience showing in the answers.

There were some areas of examination technique that let candidates down. Time management was a problem for a few

candidates with 3 fairly complete answers presented, and then the fourth was barely started. There were some questions that

candidates had either not read properly or had misunderstood the direction required, resulting in irrelevant information being

presented and in some cases whole sections missed.

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

13

annotated with appropriate labels. The worst were very small, untidy and without adequate labelling. 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.

There were a few common sources of frustration to the examiner. Many of the questions ask for details of how a problem may be

overcome or how a new plant or process may be introduced. This is not an invitation to “say all you know about” a topic. Whilst

that may generate a few marks as background to the situation, it only goes part of the way to answering the question. When

answering troubleshooting questions, a number of candidates just propose to “check” a certain aspect and then do no more. The

process of “checking” does not solve a problem; it is merely a way of finding out what is normal and what is not. It is the root

cause analysis and corrective action that solves the problem and gains the marks. Furthermore, when a candidate states that

“optimising” a process solves a problem, it does not demonstrate to the examiner any knowledge about the process and so cannot

gain many marks unless the actual changes that may be made are elucidated.

A useful process for answering many questions is to note down a quick brainstorm, mind map or fish-bone analysis to prompt

thoughts on all the relevant issues. Candidates should also note that the scope of the paper is fermentation and beer processing,

so any lengthy discussion about brewhouse issues will not gain any marks.

1. The brewing gravity of the main brand of lager in a brewery is being increased from 1058° OG (approx 14.5 P) to 1075° OG

(approx 18.75 P) by the use of glucose syrup. Discuss the possible issues arising from this decision in respect of fermentation and

downstream beer processing, and propose suitable solutions.

This question was attempted by 31 candidates with an average mark of 11.6. Pass rate was 38%. There were no very good

answers. Ideal answers would have started with a discussion on what are the effects of such a change (increased OG and osmotic

pressure in the wort, higher ABV after fermentation, etc.) and what issues these could cause (yeast stress, fermentation speed,

flavour changes, etc.). Half the marks were available for this discussion.

The solutions to these problems include considerations of wort quality (dissolved oxygen, FAN and zinc supplementation); yeast

management (pitching rate, dilution of crop, etc.); and temperature profile of fermentation and maturation. Many of the answers

covered at least some of these process parameters. Better answers would have included consideration of the value of losses being

much greater and therefore needing to be minimised; changes that would need to be made to centrifugation and filtration to deal

with higher solids levels; an increase to the capacity and flow rate of dilution liquor, and a structured trial programme and phased

change over to the new process. These latter issues were rarely mentioned, showing the lack of breadth of thought among the

candidates.

2. Recent fermentations of a frequently-brewed lager beer have been slower than the process specification and have failed to

attenuate normally. Describe the potential causes of these problems and the options available to correct them and return to the

previous satisfactory performance.

This question was attempted by 15 candidates with an average mark of 12.7. Pass rate was 60%. There was one very good answer.

There are two main areas that require discussion in answering this question, wort quality and yeast management being significant

topics. The aspects of wort quality that can be addressed in the scope of this paper relate to dissolved oxygen, zinc and FAN which

can be supplemented. Stating the reasons for these items and a suitable specification gained extra marks.

Yeast management is the main item to discuss, checking the recent records for pitching, cropping and storage and comparing with

good practice, then implementing corrective actions to ensure a sustained return to the previous good performance. A few better

answers mentioned potential problems with sensors and control systems along the process – temperature, oxygen, and yeast

pitching quantity all having the potential to drift and requiring cleaning, maintenance or recalibration.

3. A steady increase in infection levels has been detected in beer in cold storage/conditioning tanks. Describe in detail the

processes for determining the sources and causes of this infection, including details of microbiological tests suitable to aid the

investigation. What remedial procedures should be implemented to remove the infection and what should be done to prevent a

recurrence?

14

This question was attempted by 8 candidates with an average mark of 12.3. Pass rate was 50%. Many answers started by

describing the formation of a team and outlining a troubleshooting process to address this problem. A useful next stage was to

draw a process diagram and highlight potential problem areas that would need assessment. Those that missed this out often failed

to cover all potential sources of infection.

The microbiological testing that could be adopted was in general poorly covered with few people fully understanding the details of

many tests and which organisms are detected by them. Half the marks were available up to this point.

The remaining marks were shared between remedial procedures and steps to prevent recurrence. Some candidates failed to

distinguish between these processes or failed to answer one or other aspect. Remedial procedures are immediate actions required

to eliminate the infection, such as stripping down plant and replacing perished joints, inspecting for scale build up and

implementing stronger or hotter cleans, acid-washing yeast and increasing propagations, etc. Recurrence is prevented by

implementing the learning from the investigations, updating SOPs, updating CIP procedures and changing detergents, increasing

microbiological monitoring, changing plant and mains design and layout where necessary, etc. These measures are implemented

over a longer term than the immediate, remedial actions.

4. The vessel population in a conditioning tank farm has grown over many years to include 60 tanks of 800 to 2400 hl capacity,

some fitted with fixed spray balls and some with rotating-jet cleaning heads, with 3 separate CIP plants to cover each phase of

the expansion. With the aid of suitable diagrams, describe in detail the design and operational parameters of a centralised and

automated CIP plant suitable to clean all these tanks and associated product mains. What design features should be

incorporated to make this plant as environmentally-friendly as possible?

This question was attempted by 7 candidates with an average mark of 10.1. Pass rate was poor, with only one candidate achieving

the pass standard (14%).

Most of the answers fell into the category described in the introduction of “say what you know about” a basic CIP plant design, but

failed to address the specific aspects of the question regarding the mixture of tank sizes, sprayball designs and the need to clean

mains as well.

All answers had a diagram, but the quality varied considerably. Good marks could have been obtained with a detailed diagram

showing detergent, sterilant and water tanks as needed, instrumentation to form the basis of a fully automated plant, and

appropriate pipework layout. Text should have described how the plant operated with the automation, and tabulated what

cleaning cycles, chemical concentrations, etc. are adopted for each application.

Few answers addressed the environmental element worth a quarter of the marks. Standard features such as burst rinsing, liquor

and detergent recovery can be enhanced by careful selection and positioning of sensors. Cold acid cleans can be used most of the

time to minimise heating costs and loss of carbon dioxide. Chemical strengths can be kept to the minimum effective level.

Chemical storage must be securely bunded to avoid loss to drain.

5. Discuss the possible causes of lower than normal filtration runs in a kieselguhr filtration operation. Describe practical

measures that could be taken to determine the nature of the problems, and corrective actions that can be taken in the

fermentation and beer processing areas to restore the previous performance.

This question was attempted by 15 candidates with an average mark of 12.3. Pass rate was 53%. The ideal start to the answer

would have been to define what a normal filter run is in terms of volume throughput, pressure rise, time, etc., then state what

may determine the end of a run (pressure differential, haze, etc.). It is also helpful to distinguish between a gradual slowing of the

run or a step change, which will have different causes and solutions.

Many candidates covered the issue of excess solids being a possible cause, though not all the subtleties were covered (change in

yeast behaviour, poor cropping, poor centrifuge performance, poor tank change or buffer tank management).

Fewer candidates covered the issue of haze in the filtered beer as a cause of lower runs. This could either be a particulate haze

caused by filter powder breakthrough or colloidal haze from yeast autolysis or poor temperature control in storage or in-line.

Credit was also given for mention of dissolved oxygen ingress as a potential cause of lower runs if the problem could not be solved

while the run was in progress.

Some candidates, those showing practical experience of the operation, gained further marks by describing mechanical problems

that could interfere, such as dosing pump failure, line blockages, blinding of filter septa, pressure shocks, etc.

15

6.Describe the steps that can be taken to minimise the usage of utilities and the amount of effluent produced in the

fermentation and beer processing areas of a brewery. Discuss the potential impact on product quality of measures identified.

This question was attempted by 10 candidates with an average mark of 10.8. Pass rate was 40%. There were not many structured

answers to this question, possibly due to time management issues as several candidates left this until last. An ideal start would

have been to summarise the utilities and the major areas of use, and the major sources of effluent. Electricity is the major

component, heavily used in refrigeration duties and also for air compression, CO2 collection and at reduced amounts for pumping,

lighting, ventilation etc. Steam, top pressure gases and water should also be listed. Not all answers considered the effluent aspects

such as yeast and beer going to drain in transfer and CIP operations, interface diversion, CIP chemicals to drain in use and when

replacing used batches, and water itself during deaeration and sterilisation of mains.

Credit was also given for outlining the management approach to this task, including using the workforce in a project scenario,

training and awareness, departmental metering, target setting, etc. In the longer term, implementing ISO14001 could be

considered to sustain performance.

Minimisation measures include ensuring good insulation everywhere, phasing activities to reduce peak electrical loading,

increasing some temperature settings, cold-cleaning, maintenance of leaks, pumps etc., acid cleaning to reduce the need for

replenishing CO2, recovering beer from yeast, etc.

Potential effects on quality range from none to impact on stability, flavour and microbiological infection. This question is perhaps

best answered in tabular form with the minimisation measures listed and the quality impact annotated in the adjacent column.

Jeremy Stead

Module 3: Packaging of Beer

The module was sat by 23 candidates, compared with 27 candidates in 2013 and 25candidates in 2012. The pass rate for the




A: 0%

B: 0%

C: 17%

D: 30%

E: 43%

F: 9%



MCQ Paper 1 is aimed at demonstrating experience this year. Overall, candidates appear to be familiar with the basic principles of

a least one method of packaging. However when pressed on packaging requirements outside of their experience only a basic

knowledge is demonstrable.

Calculation based questions were unpopular and in some cases unanswered. This is disappointing as it casts doubt on the

capability of the candidate who may have answered written questions well.

If presenting for this level of qualification a good overall knowledge of the syllabus needs to be backed up by practical experience.

It is worrying that some candidates with very general knowledge rather than experience of managing or operating a packaging line

are presenting for this paper.

Also it is vital that candidates read the question and provide the appropriate answer. For example in several cases annual costs

were quoted when cost / case was requested. Attention to the detailed requirements of a question is important rather the

choosing to focus an answer on unrelated areas candidates have knowledge of.

16

As in last year’s paper bottling then kegging questions were answered best, the exception being the use of the PSL labeller

question which was very poorly answered considering the established nature of this technology. Several calculations as mentioned

above were answered very well, extremely badly or not at all. All the information is available within the question to provide a

sensible answer and these should pose no problem at all to any candidate with operational experience.


As per last year in paper 2 there were four very popular questions with over 90% of candidates attempting them and one

unpopular question which only 17% of candidates attempted with a 50% pass rate.

The best candidates were able to clearly demonstrate their knowledge and direct experience of a topic area by including accurate

references, sensible values and justifications to a range of processes and operational parameters.

Examination technique failed certain candidates with questions missed completely or obviously answered under a severe time

constraint. At this level a page or two of brief general notes is insufficient to verify experience and knowledge. A few candidates

continue not to read the questions and miss out the key elements requested. Good diagrams were rare, if well laid out diagrams

can provide an excellent source of data. Poorer diagrams were accompanied by data hidden in scripts later in the answer whereas

good answers had clear tables relating information and data to sections of the question.

Some questions were answered well with high scores however all candidates had a least one question that they failed to maintain

their standard on. The absence of A or B grades evidences a lack of in depth knowledge of packaging types outwith the candidates

normal experience.

1. Design a bottling line to produce the following volumes of non-returnable bottled beer for contract bottling customers:

600,000 hectolitres of 330 ml bottles

300,000 hectolitres of 500 ml bottles.

Multiple brands will be bottled in each size, a common bottle for each size will be used for all brands. Due to the range of

contract customers served several secondary packaging options are required. The plant will operate a two shift 5 day week.

Describe the projected staffing levels, utility requirements, data capture methodology and operational schedules required to

meet best practice quality and cost objectives.

This question was attempted by 18 candidates with an average mark of 13.2. Pass rate was 78%. The key to answering this

question well was to address all details of the calculation of to the base design using sensible assumptions. Better answers

demonstrated consideration of efficiency; shift patterns; holiday allowance; pack filling speeds; sterilisation patterns; and cycle

time for planning stock rotations. Calculation alone is insufficient a good explanation is needed to support assumptions and final

design. Good answers were able to deal with practical solutions explaining their choice of plant sizing, shift patterns and

throughputs with sensible estimates of efficiency. A good diagram is key to answering this question quickly.

The second section of the question covering Utilities; manning; data capture methods; planning regards product portfolio related

to shifts and pack size and manning, relied on a good knowledge based description covering the requested items. This was only

answered by a few candidates in a structured manner.

2. For a retail outlet selling both small and large pack product, what factors can adversely impact on beer quality in-glass?

Describe and detail how these factors can be controlled. Assume that beer quality is satisfactory on delivery to the outlet.

This question was attempted by 22 candidates with an average mark of 9.9. Of those answering only 23% achieved the pass

standard as the majority could only display a rudimentary knowledge of dispense systems and cellar design. The better answers

understood the physical, flavour and hygiene challenges and justified the technical options. Sound references to best practice

required to present product at the correct specification were good evidence of experience. Poor answers simply referred to faults

and suggested the root cause was identified and rectified without any examples or preventative measure being defined. Brewing

and packaging personnel who have exposure to in house dispense systems or have taken part in trade visits or audits as a result of

retail problems should be able to present a wide range of potential faults and practical solutions.

3. For a keg packaging plant, describe the process of carrying out a HACCP assessment to cover risks to product safety.

17

Make a list of critical control points in the plant, starting with beer in filtered beer storage tank and finishing with transfer to

warehouse.

For each critical control point, justify why it is a CCP and describe how the food safety risk identified is controlled.

This question was attempted by 21 candidates with an average mark of 12.0. There was a wide range in the standard of the

answers and 53% achieved the pass standard making this one of the better answered questions.

The question focused on a HACCP assessment in order to develop a HACCP plan, not an audit of an existing HACCP plan. The better

candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of understanding of the HACCP principles in respect to consumer safety not

quality of product. They then applied these to kegging focused on a multi fill head keg line using examples, rather than discussing

HACCP in general, they also demonstrated knowledge of relevant pre requisite programs relevant to keg filling. Finally a risk

assessment and CCP list should be generated relevant to the food safety risks identified in this operation with clear control points

and values included

4. For either a keg or cask packaging plant describe the overall environmental impact of the various operations involved.

Describe what steps can be taken to minimise the environmental impact of the chosen filling operation include detail of

suggested recommendations and process control specifications


answers and 50% achieved the pass standard.

In general pass marks were low or very poor suggesting little exposure to a large pack environmental assessment. Most candidates

could produce a list of key environmental inputs and outputs few were all encompassing and biological risks tended to be

overlooked e.g. cooling towers. General comments on environmental issues are not sufficient; the best way to tackle the question

was to list inputs and outputs relevant to each quantified process stage then to consider appropriate and realistic measures and

controls.

5. Describe the components which make up a revenue budget for EITHER a canning operation OR a non-returnable bottling

operation.

Give examples of situations for each key operational process which can lead to adverse performance against budget and detail

actions which could be taken to deal with these situations.

This question was attempted by 4 candidates with an average mark of 13.5. This was the least popular question with 50%

achieving the pass rate. A good answer demonstrated an understanding of budget allocations in terms of controllable revenue

costs as related to the chosen product and plant operation with details of product range, manning, services, loss rates, efficiency

issues. Examples were key to justifying decisions on how the budget was established detail was needed regards how variances

were monitored, their potential causes and sensible plans to control such budgets. Poor answers were lacking in detail. A lack of

experience in developing and exercising budget control was apparent in this question and this was reinforced by the candidate’s

willingness to tackle some of the simple financial calculations in the MCQ paper.

6. Detail and justify a minimum sample plan suitable to assure product quality in bottled or canned products.

Explain what changes would be needed to the sampling plan in response to an increase in flavour complaints and justify how

this new data would be used to aid appropriate corrective action allowing a return to the original sampling plan.


answers and 58% achieved the pass standard making this one of the better answered questions.

Most candidates produced a good level of detail in their sampling plan with values and justifications for timings and targets,

weaker plans lacked detail in sampling frequency and responsibilities. Very few detailed how and where sample analysis records

would be stored and reviewed. The question asked for justification of the suggested plan, this area was often overlooked.

The second part of the question allowed the candidates to suggest a wide range of non conformance that could generate flavour

complaints. It was up to the candidate to suggest focused change to the established plan in response to their identified

complaints. In general the link between flavour failure, investigation and justified sampling increases based on sensible

18

conclusions was poor. The better candidates came up with a wide range of potential flavour issues and justified targeted changes

to the plan in order that corrective and preventative actions relevant to the chosen package could be implemented.

Michael Partridge

Module 4 – Resource Management and Regulatory Compliance





A: 0%

B: 0%

C: 36%

D: 36%

E: 28%

F: 0%



The pattern of recent years was once again repeated with questions on the environment, health and safety, quality assurance and

resource planning being answered more strongly than finance and supply chain. However, as can be seen from the average score,

the overall standard was good.

For Q10 (what is a “safe working practice?”) several candidates were clearly either unsure or confused with a “permit to work”.

The examiner was seeking an explanation along the lines “....a procedure / practice where the risks have been assessed and

eliminated or rendered acceptable by having effective mitigating measures in place”.

Q18 (four justifications for allocating capital expenditure where a financial return is not necessarily expected) produced a range of

answers. A list might have included: product quality; major plant replacement; additional capacity; extending the life of an asset;

health and safety or environmental legislation.

Q19 (contribution to overheads). Just two candidates knew that this may be defined as “sales income minus cost of sales”.

Q20 (key elements of cost to produce beer packaged in bottles). Amongst generally good answers a number of candidates forgot

the cost of the raw materials to produce the beer!

For Q28 (ways in which effective plant maintenance beneficially impacts on the business). In general this question was handled

well. However many candidates stated that maintenance costs are lower – this is not necessarily true. It would be hoped that

maintenance costs are more predictable compared with breakdowns and unplanned costs.

For Q32 (definition of lean manufacturing) the majority of candidates were clear on “the continuous elimination of all

waste...........” but failed to go on to “...........resulting in a system of value added activity”.


1. Explain the benefits of managing energy and utility consumption in real time. Discuss how this can be achieved and explain

the practical difficulties which may be encountered.

12 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between an extremely poor 4 and a good 19, with an average

score of 11. Pass rate was 42%.

19

The key to this question were the words “in real time”. Too many candidates simply explained the benefits of managing energy

and utility consumption......full stop!

The better candidates developed up to five benefits:

• Being able to measure / monitor energy and utilities instantaneously (as it is consumed).

• Being able to empower personnel to take immediate (generally corrective) action to address an abnormal consumption.

• To optimise energy and utility use.

• To benchmark more accurately.

• To allow departmental budgetary accountability (user pays principle).

The second point is one of the greatest benefits and is generally achieved by having control limits with alarms (visual on computer

screens / phones and / or audible) to prompt immediate corrective action. This contrasts with the historic approach of

investigating an abnormal use (often a spike on a chart) at some time after the event and trying to prevent reoccurrence – the

damage has already been done at this point!

The fifth point is a very important development – historically there was rarely sufficient metering to provide user accountability.

Attempts to do so by summation generally failed as the information lacked credibility and could easily be challenged.

For the second part of the question the examiner was seeking a discussion around four key issues on how real time management

can be achieved:

• Requires installation of comprehensive metering and sub-metering for, as a minimum, the largest consumers of

electricity, thermal energy, water and process gases.

• Need to set control and alarm levels for normal and abnormal conditions.

• Requires computer system to monitor consumptions and flag changing and alarm conditions.

• Need to empower operators and technicians to modify or even stop processes to reduce abnormal consumption.

Practicalities detailed by the best candidates included: High capital cost (although usually a good pay-back) plus some disruption

during installation; Ongoing revenue costs (maintenance and calibration of instruments, training of operators and technicians);

Prioritisation of metering (deciding between various energies and utilities); Implications for production planning and customer

service of slowing or stopping processes; Handling very large quantities of data.

2. List the issues and concerns, which may arise when carrying out Health and Safety risk assessments.

With the aid of a diagram, explain the construction and calibration of a risk grid. How is a risk grid used as a management tool?

This very popular question was attempted by nineteen candidates with marks ranging from 8 to a very good 20 with a

disappointing average of 13. Pass rate was 68%.

The question did NOT ask for the methodology of risk assessment (submitted by significant number of candidates) but for a list of

issues and concerns when carrying out such assessments. Equally, a list of hazards present in the brewing industry was not being

sought so the following openings to answers were off target: “The following concerns are common in the brewing industry: heat,

noise, dust etc.....” or “Typical issues that may arise when carrying out Health and safety risk assessments are areas such as slips,

trips and falls, working at height..........”

The examiner was seeking a list which should have included (but not confined to):

• Are the individuals / group competent to assess the risk – do they have the right knowledge and experience?

• Are the individuals who will be exposed to the risk represented?

• Is the risk assessment original or merely a copy of another which may not be identical?

• Is the assessment being rushed without all the correct information?

• Is the assessment being carried out in the area of the risk or remotely (are all the implications being taken into account)?

• Do the individuals / group have authority to put mitigation measures in place or would there be a delay in the process?

• What are the processes or procedures for ensuring that tasks are carried out safely, taking into account the results and

requirements of the risk assessment?

• Is the risk assessment being adequately documented?

• How frequently are risk assessments reviewed?

20

For the second part of the question an explanation was required, not simply annotations to a diagram or sketch. In general this

part was answered well with good explanations of the key features including calibration of the grid in quantitative terms. As is

found in working examples, there was some variation in “likelihood of occurrence” from the use of terms such as “very unlikely,

somewhat unlikely, unlikely, etc” to numeric terms such as “1 in 1 year, 1 in 10 years, 1 in 100 years etc”. The examiner takes the

view that it is important to use terms that the participants taking part in the risk assessments can relate to and be a meaningful

standard for all to use at that brewery location.

The final part of the question produced variable responses. The best answer listed the following (not in any order of relative

importance):

• Severity vs incidence can be evaluated.

• Relatively simple visual guide for overseeing multiple risks.

• Risks can be quantified relative to each other to allow identification of priorities.

• Use of risk grids is in line with regulatory authorities (same language).

• Allocation of resources – personnel and money.

• Guide for continuous improvement to reduce risks.

• Patterns of risk can be identified.

The third point is clearly one of the key benefits of using a risk grid.

3. Describe a methodical process to identify where critical control points (CCPs) should exist and how they should be

implemented and communicated.

Describe a CCP and how it should be monitored and reviewed.

All 22 candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging from 8 to a very good 20 with an average of 14. Pass rate was

82%.

Several chose to use a burst bottle or pasteuriser on a bottling line as an example but few confirmed if they regarded it as a CCP or

not. The decision tree and 7 steps were well documented and most candidates identified the importance of setting limits, good

labelling, training and ongoing reviews. The better candidates were clear on distinguishing between whether the issue was

actually a CCP, could be eliminated or was a very important Quality stage which should be managed with daily procedures and

good staff training, in particular handovers at shift changes. Additional marks were also scored if pre-requisites were identified

and one candidate had highlighted an example of running a test recorder through a pasteuriser to confirm the automatic control

system was functioning correctly. Some candidates had also stressed the importance of assessing new or modified plant

installations at the design stage and when taken into use. Lower marks were awarded to candidates who did little more than

describe the normal seven stages with no description of actions, training or reviews.

4. Describe the main types of variance that might appear in the monthly management accounts. Identify the probable causes

and suggest ways to improve the accuracy of the budget process in following years.

What is the major benefit of monitoring year to date (YTD) budget information?

This question was answered by just 5 candidates. Marks ranged from 5 to 17 with an average of 11. Pass rate was 60%.

As ever, the finance question was attempted by few candidates. One candidate achieved a creditable 17 marks for a good answer

that covered materials losses and maintenance very well.

Other good points picked out were the effect of the mix of products, unanticipated poor extract yields and efficiencies.

Utilities were mentioned, price would normally be agreed on an annual predictable basis and increased consumption through

losses or production inefficiencies were adequately covered.

The poorer answers only referred in general terms to maintenance, overheads and material. Few candidates offered any

discussion on cause or effect of variances

21

In general it was disappointing that finance knowledge seems to form such a small part of training and experience gained. The

questions are generally straightforward and any aspiring brewery manager needs a firm understanding of how finances operate,

both as part of a team in a large brewery and much more closely in a small one.

The second part was poorly answered. Only one candidate highlighted the major benefit of understanding financial progress

through the year to smooth monthly peaks and troughs and the ability to assist forecasting the end of year position or future years

budgeting.

5. Describe options for how brewery production can meet volatile sales demand and the implications of each one.

Suggest ways to improve the process of matching production with demand.

Seventeen candidates attempted this question with marks ranging from 7 to a good 20 with an average of 13. Pass rate was 65%.

Most identified good planning for fewer changeovers and plant maintenance and good efficiencies. To minimise the impact,

several candidates referred to good supplies of raw materials with the ability to call more off if required. Short term answers

included some outsourcing, production smoothing, substitutions and stock build ups and high gravity brewing although that is

normal in many breweries anyway. The better candidates stressed the need for sales and production teams to liaise regularly to

achieve better communication and forecasting, discuss priorities, identify bottlenecks and possible additional plant capacity

requirements. One candidate stressed the aging process once out of conditioning tank as a caution to increasing stock levels too

soon to meet peaks. Most candidates concerned themselves with stock shortages but one tackled the opposite case and offered

promotional selling as a way of dealing with excess stocks

6. Discuss the measures which are available for assessing the effectiveness of plant maintenance.

Discuss the competing pressures which can affect maintenance activities.

Thirteen candidates submitted answers to this question with marks ranging from 9 to a very satisfactory 17 with an average of 13.

Pass rate was 69%.

The first part of the question was generally answered well with discussion on a range of measure which included: OEE, meantime

between failure, meantime to repair, PM backlog, compliance to planned schedule, spares stockouts, % PM / predictive work, % of

corrective maintenance, % of technician day “on tools”, autonomous maintenance hours worked etc. The examiner was also keen

to see discussion on financial measures such as maintenance cost / unit of output and maintenance cost as % of plant replacement

value.

The second part of the question was answered poorly with just one candidate producing a reasonable response. The examiner was

seeking discussion around pressures including but not limited to:

• Time: Loss of scheduled maintenance time for production; slots for extended maintenance work; pressure to fix

breakdowns temporarily rather than permanently; unsocial hours for maintenance; regulatory deadlines e.g. pressure

system inspections.

• Cost: Labour costs – number of technicians; specialist contractors; spares stockholding; affordability / scope of shutdown

work.

• Skills: Own staff skills; specialist skills.

• Access: Plant availability – lines; plant availability – shared services / utilities.

• Other: Competing priorities where maintenance resources shared; working with inherently unreliable plant (de-

motivating!); agreeing which maintenance activities are appropriate; measuring effectiveness; motivation of staff.

Ian Bearpark and Robin Cooper

22

DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2014

Module 1 – Materials and Wort


examination this year was 57.3%. This compares with a pass rate in 2013 of 71% and 2012 of 61%.


The grade distribution was as follows (2013 in parenthesis):

A: 2% (0%)

B: 8% (10%)

C: 18% (29%)

D: 29% (32%)

E: 15% (16%)

F: 19% (8%)

G: 9% (5%)

Once again the examiners request that you number each question that you have answered clearly in the examination booklet (in

order!) 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. Additionally mark clearly on each page what question it is you are

answering. 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.

Many candidates started their answer by rewriting the question from the examination paper. This is simply a waste of precious

time.

This year the quality of candidates presenting themselves for this examination was more polarized than ever before. Many of the

candidates were ill prepared and had clearly not looked at the previous papers and comments in the examiners reports. On the

positive side there were a number of very good candidates and that is reflected in the marks at the top end of the scale.

There was also a dramatic difference in the quality of the answers to the various questions. Some which were similar to questions

asked in the past were generally well answered, but the questions which were asking the candidates to demonstrate their

knowledge with slightly different questions, were in many cases poorly answered. It is clear that many candidates practise

question spotting and then try and ‘shoe horn’ a prepared answer into the question, regardless how relevant it is.

Candidates should refer to the ‘Examination Candidate’s Guide’ document for further advice as to how to allocate their study time

beyond answering previous years’ questions.

1. i) Describe the processes involved in preparing barley for the malting process, using diagrams where appropriate.[10]

ii) Define and briefly describe the importance in malting of the following terms:

1. Dormancy

2. Modification

3. Mealy

4. Curing

5. De-culming (2 marks each) [10]

This question was attempted by 331 candidates with an average mark of 9.2. Pass rate was 61%. In the first part of the question

there were many candidates who gave a great account of the specifications required of barley for malting. If the question was

properly read the candidate would have realized that this was out of the scope of the question. In the second part some

candidates spent valuable time providing details well beyond what the question was worth (for example one whole page for 2

marks!).

23

In the first part the examiners were looking for a description of barley separation, cleaning where dust, tramp metal, foreign seeds

and broken seeds are removed. A short detail of that process was required for top marks. The next step is barley grading and the

candidate was expected to detail the process and the specifications of the sized barley and the uses of each grade. Finally, a

detailing of storage of the barley at the maltings, along with processes to eliminate hot spots and ensure that the grain remains

viable was required for top marks.

In the second part of the question for dormancy, it is defined as when a living grain refuses to germinate under normally

favourable conditions. The importance is that if it will not grow, it cannot be malted. For modification, it is defined as the degree

of breakdown of the protein/carbohydrate matrix as well as the cell walls in the grain endosperm. The importance of modification

is that if not fully modified the malt will create problems with the customer, if over modified, the malting loss will be high. Mealy

grains are low in protein in the endosperm, and will result in faster water uptake in the malting process as well as well modified

malt. Curing is the final phase of kilning process where enzymes are de-activated, final moisture is reduced to 5-6% and

characteristic malt aroma, flavour and colour are developed. And finally, de-culming is the removal of the rootlets, which if not

removed can cause handling problems as well as migration of unwanted compounds back into the finished malt,

2. i) List the potential advantages and disadvantages of using adjuncts in brewing. [10]

ii) List and briefly describe the range of specialty barley malts produced through higher temperature kilning or roasting

regimes.[10]

This question was attempted by 306 candidates with an average mark of 7.9. Pass rate was 41%. In the first part of the question

the word ‘list’ was used to indicate that is what the examiner was looking for, no detailed description was involved. Many

candidates gave a great accounting of the adjuncts that can be used in brewing that probably took a considerable amount of time

to write. The advantages of using adjuncts include: provide extract at a lower cost than malt, enhanced physical and

microbiological stability due to decreased protein levels, increase in production capacity, increased plant capacity, allow for

product flavour changes, reduced cell wall material can reduce wort viscosity, diminished lipid and fat levels can minimize staling

and reduce foam stability, can also increase foam stability, and reduced protein levels produce less trub and improve hop

utilization. Disadvantages include, need for increased processing of the adjuncts requiring additional equipment, time and

manpower, FAN levels may be diluted to the point where yeast nutrition is negatively affected, unwanted flavour changes may

occur, difficulty in achieving complete saccharification. Increased lauter tun loading leading to slower runoff, excessive flours can

cause set mashes and adjunct use requires additional storage and sometimes complications.

In part two of the question again many candidates did not read the question because we had descriptions of roasting barley,

wheat etc. The specialty barley malts we were looking for included Munich malt, crystal and carapils malts, amber malts and

chocolate and black roasted malts. Top marks were given to those candidates that described briefly the production, the final

colour and flavour imparted for each.

3. Describe briefly the methods used to analyse each of the following parameters and explain their importance in brewing:

1. Hot Water Extract

2. Free Amino Nitrogen

3. Friability

4. Diastatic Power

5. Wort Viscosity (4 marks each. [20]

This question was attempted by 191 candidates with an average mark of 9.6. With a pass rate of 56% the question was generally

answered well. Many candidates however did forget to explain the ‘importance’ of each of these analyses in brewing. The best

answered were Free Amino Nitrogen and Friability. For Hot Water Extract the examiners were looking for an indication that the

candidate knew that to accomplish the method a micro-mash was required before filtration of the wort and determination of

specific gravity. The importance of this method is that is gives the brewer an indication of the total available extract contained in

the malt. FAN is measured spectrophotometricaly at 570 nm at pH 6.7 in the presence of ninhydrin. As well, new HPLC analyses

have been recently developed for FAN. FAN is of utmost importance for yeast nutrition in fermentation. Friability is determined by

use of a Friabilimeter, which fragments the malt in a rotating drum. Small fragments pass through the mesh and the retained

larger fragments are measured after 8 minutes. Friability measures the degree of modification of the malt, which in turn is

24

important for wort fermentability, viscosity etc. Diastatic power is measured by challenging the malt to a measured amount of

control starch and measuring the amount of reducing sugars produced by titration with Fehling’s solution. Flow injection analysis

may also be used after preparation of a micro-mash. Diastatic power is a measure of the enzyme titre in the malt, as well as an

indication of the time required for conversion. Viscosity is measured by the use of a viscometer, which measure the time for a

fixed volume of wort to flow at 20°C through a capillary. The time is compared with a water standard, or the use of pre-calculated

factors. Viscosity is important in determining lautering or filtration in the brewing process as it measures the amount of beta-

glucans as well as other cell wall components.

4. Describe how the composition of wort and of finished beer can be controlled by varying the mashing-in and mash conversion

conditions. [20]

This question was answered by 243 candidates with an average mark of 7.3. Pass rate was only 37%. This question was relatively

poorly answered once again because many of the candidates did not read the question providing detailed description of changes

in the malting and boiling processes! There are 6 main conditions or modifiers in mashing, temperature, time, mash thickness,

strike temperature, pH and extract composition. In terms of temperature it has the following effects, increased temperature will

increase the speed of enzyme activity, the rate of enzyme inactivation, rate of starch gelatinization and conversion, mash

homogeneity and diffusion of substances through the mash as well as reduce wort fermentability and reduce extract yield. The top

candidates included a chart of enzymes, pH and temperature ranges. Mash thickness plays a part in enzyme stability,

concentration and activity (thicker mashes protect heat labile enzymes). Strike temperature is the relationship between the mash

water temperature and malt temperature and the effect on initial temperature. Mash pH plays a huge part in starch degradation,

protease activity, protein solubility and coagulation and tannin extraction. It can increase extract yield and attenuation, enhance

soluble nitrogen levels, reduce haze potential, increased bacterial stabilization, improved wort separation, less viscous worts,

reduced wort colour and reduced hop utilization. The nature of the extract source can play a part in wort composition in that the

use of adjuncts can alter the carbohydrate profile and hence the fermentability of the wort.

5. Compare and contrast the design and operational principles of two of the following items of equipment:

Infusion Mash Tun

Lauter Tun

Mash Filter. [20]

This question was attempted by 312 candidates with an average mark of 9.8. Pass rate was 61%. This question produced answers

ranging from very good to extremely poor with a distinct polarisation in the standard of the answers. It was clear that many of the

question spotters had prepared well for this question but it also demonstrated just how unprepared many of the candidates were

for an examination at this level. This is a very straightforward question and the candidates should have been capable of making a

good attempt at it if they had carried out any kind of preparation for the examination.

Once again some candidates demonstrated poor examination technique by answering all three parts of the question. Many also

failed to produce fully labelled diagrams which would have boosted their marks. Another common failure was to produce a table

comparing the items of plant but showing figures without their units and confusing dimensions such as millimetres with meters

and quoting bed depth for example as Kgm2. In some cases candidates resorted to terms like ‘big’ and ‘bigger’.

There was again some confusion about the design of the Infusion Mash Tun with several fantastic ‘hybrid’ designs combining

features of a Mash Conversion Vessel with a Lauter Tun including steam jackets and mixers.

A common fault was to produce diagrams on the blank left side of the book which clearly states that it is not to be used.

A good answer would have produced a fully labelled diagram of the item of plant and then detailed the design and operation

including how Darcy’s law was being applied in terms of bed depth, grist preparation and permeability, pressure considerations,

and area. A comparison table complete with numbers and units where applicable, should then have been used to highlight the

differences between the items of plant.

6. i) Describe the components of hops which contribute bitterness to beer [8]

and

25

ii) the factors which determine the level of bitterness achieved. [8]

iii) Calculate how many kg of 12% alpha acid hops are required to be added at the beginning of the boil to produce 1000 hl of

beer with a bitterness of 28 IBU. 50 kg of 6% alpha aroma hops are to be added towards the end of the boil. Assume the

utilisation of the bitterness hops is 25% and that of the aroma hops is 10%. [4]

This question was attempted by 292 candidates with an average mark of 9.3. With a pass rate of 56% this question produced again

a mixture of good and poor answers.

For the first part most candidates were able to draw a diagram itemising the soft and hard resins and the various components but

also included the essential oils which are irrelevant to this answer.

Many candidates also just covered iso alpha acid and did not cover the role of oxidised beta acids, with even fewer mentioning

reduced hops and polyphenols.

The second part of the answer was generally fairly well answered although some poorer candidates did not explain how the

factors actually affected the utilisation with answers such as ‘pH, temperature, time’. Among the items which should have been

covered are boil time, hopping rate, hop alpha acid levels, the presence of divalent ions, wort gravity, hop product, wort pH, type

of kettle and boil vigour, oxidation of the alpha acids, foaming during the boil, fermentation system, yeast type and growth,

downstream foaming, downstream processing, and measurement.

The calculation clearly divided the competence of the candidates. Around half of the candidates calculated the correct answer,

although some took a full page of calculations, for what is a three line calculation! Around 20% of the candidates did not attempt

the calculation at all. When carrying out a calculation of this nature it is also essential that the candidate ‘sore thumbs’ the answer.

It is possible to ‘lose’ a decimal place but a brewer should have a good idea of the order of the answer. At least two candidates

wanted to use 9 tonnes of hops!

One common fault with 10% of the candidates was to ignore the role of the aroma hops. In some cases this was an oversight but

many of the candidates stated that aroma hops do not contribute bitterness and thought this was a ‘trick question’ (despite a

given utilisation of 10%). The examiner is aware that some of the training material perpetuates the myth that aroma hops added

towards the end of the boil do not contribute bitterness. Some of the hops used for aroma, currently, have alpha acid levels of

over 15% and even if the hops are added right at the end of the boil the hops will be in contact with the hot wort for a

considerable time as the wort is cooled. The utilisation will be much lower than that achieved at the start of the boil but they will

contribute bitterness!

It is of concern that candidates attempting an examination at this level are incapable of calculating the hop requirements for a

brew and it is possible that at work they use a spreadsheet, an on-line calculation or an ‘App’ to carry out this task.

7. i) Outline the chemical changes that take place during wort boiling. [10]

ii) Summarize the basic principles of design and operation of wort kettles/boilers. [10]

This question was attempted by 329 candidates with an average mark of 10.4. Pass rate was 71%; this was the most popular

question on the paper and was also the best answered. This was mainly due to part one which was extremely well answered

rather than part two where the answers were very variable.

Part one clearly had been ‘spotted’ by the candidates and most were able to produce a commendable list of changes that occur

during wort boiling. A large number did stray into purely physical areas such as wort concentration etc. for which they received no

marks. It was surprising however how many candidates forgot to mention the isomerisation of alpha acid to iso alpha acid.

Part two had a few extremely good answers but many candidates faced with a question which they had not anticipated tried use a

prepared answer with varying degrees of success. Many simply listed the various types of kettle equipment available and although

26

they were awarded a few marks they also missed out on many more as they did not cover the basic principles asked for in the

question.

A good answer would have used many diagrams and would have covered the basic design considerations such as heat transfer

including the equations, modes of wort boiling (forced convection, nucleate boiling, film boiling), wetability of the material of

design and fouling. They would then have considered the various types of system available including how the principles had been

applied in the design, rather than just a basic description. Specific details such as heating surface considerations, venting and

condensate ring should also have been covered.

8. i) Using diagrams, describe in detail the layout and design of a brewhouse plant cleaning-in-place (CIP) system. [12]

ii) Describe a CIP regime including detergent composition, times and frequency, for the following items of plant –

A wort kettle including the heating surfaces.

and

A wort cooler and downstream (cold side) associated pipework including the aeration/oxygenation system. (4 marks

each). [8]

This question was attempted by only 116 candidates with an average mark of 9.4 - this was clearly in many cases the answer of

last resort although with a pass rate of 63% there were several extremely good answers. This is an important area of the

brewhouse which is being ignored my many of the candidates, and this will be taken into account in future examinations.

This question clearly indicated the importance of reading the question and also the marks allocation. Many candidates did not

include diagrams and a large percentage produced a very limited part one but then went into great detail with part two despite

the marks allocation of 12 for part one and 4 each for the two sections of part two.

Many of the plant layout diagrams for part one were very basic and in some cases just included a series of boxes representing

tanks with some lines connecting these to the plant. It was surprising how many of the answers included fermenters as the vessels

to be cleaned, despite this being a brewhouse question. A good answer would have included a more detailed line diagram showing

the arrangement for detergent delivery and return with the valves shown and also the facilities to top up the various tanks and

check the strength and temperature of the contents. The importance of matching the supply and scavenge pumps to the various

duties should also have been included. The means of detecting the interfaces on the returning liquids was also often missed.

The first part of the question should also have considered the design consideration in the field such as pipework design, flow

velocities, sprayballs/sprayjets provision, scavenging of vessels and the necessity in some cases to soak the plant.

The key to the second part of the question was to explain the needs of the two cleaning duties. In the case of the wort kettle and

heating surfaces this is all about cleaning and preventing fouling which may have an adverse effect of the boiling efficiency. In this

case the need for detergent additives should have been covered as well as the need for a physical element in the cleaning regime.

The wort cooler and downstream which also included the need to prevent fouling in the heat exchanger also needed to address

the issue of microbiological infection. In this case a sterilising stage should be included. The aeration/oxygenation being a

particular risk area needed to be covered and should have included cleaning and sterilising provision.

Robert McCaig and Ian Smith

Module 2 – Yeast and Beer


examination this year was 45.3%. This compares with a pass rate in 2013 of 53% and 2012 of 50%.

The average mark for all candidates was 40.7%. This compares with an average mark of 43% in 2013 and 42% in 2012.


27

A: 0% (0%)

B: 4% (1%)

C: 8% (13%)

D: 34% (41%)

E: 22% (24%)

F: 22% (15%)

G: 11% (6%)

The goals of Module 2 Exam are consistent with the overall objectives of the Diploma in Brewing. In Module 2 the examiners aim

to test the candidate’s comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the principles of all the topics in the syllabus.

After marking this year’s papers the examiners and moderator identified a number of factors that contributed to a candidate’s

success.

• They had studied the revision notes: many of the possible points that could be awarded could be found in the revision

notes. The knowledge needed to attain the remaining points can be found in contemporary literature. Additional

materials can be found within the IBD website.

• They had knowledge across the subjects in the syllabus. The exams require that candidates have knowledge and

understanding across the entire syllabus. If candidates are prepared they will have no problem in finding 6 questions that

they can answer. This year we again saw candidates who had a passing grade on five questions, but who then struggled

to get more than a few points from sixth question.

• Their answers demonstrated an understanding of the subject matter, as they were able to answer the questions

specifically. They avoided the trap of regurgitated sections of revision notes that did not answer the question asked.

• They made sure they answered the question in a succinct manner. Before answering the question many successful

candidates had carefully planned their answers in a fishbone or a mind-map. They avoided the temptation of including

information verbatim from the revision notes that did not answer the question.

• They understood the partnership between the candidate and the examiner: candidate’s obligation is to communicate the

answer in the clearest manner, so the examiner can award the most points. In the best papers answers were written in a

legible script where the relevant information was grouped in paragraphs. Headings made the answers easier to read and

award points. Tables were an effective way of communicating information and preventing the candidate from omitting

important information.

• They answered the question asked rather than the one they had hoped for. For example, if they were asked for three

examples they gave three, or when asked about beer filtration they did not include information on chill-proofing agents.

• They used precise language and directly answered the question: for example ‘increasing fermentation temperature will

increase beer ester levels’ versus ‘controlling temperature is important in controlling esters’.

As in past years we provide pointers specific to each question for candidates, mentors and trainers. In addition we encourage each

candidate to practice developing written responses to previous questions that are built from an understanding of the materials in

the syllabus, It is important to see connectivity between the common themes by examining the subjects with “why” statements.

For example, why do yeast replicate at a faster rate when provided more oxygen or wort lipids at the onset of fermentation. By

examining this, the candidate can build a real understanding of yeast behaviour that is critical to managing a brewery

fermentation and consistent with the standards of this examination.

1. i) Describe the different mechanisms used by yeast to transport the following wort sugars:

a) Glucose

b) Sucrose

c) Maltose

d) Maltotriose [8]

ii) Outline the pathways used by yeast to metabolize glucose to ethanol. Include ATP yield and NAD oxidation/reduction. [12]

This question was attempted by 274 candidates with an average mark of 8.8. Pass rate was 51%. Part (i) asked for the mechanisms

of uptake for the different sugars with approximately equal points for being awarded for each sugar. The best answers included

28

facilitated diffusion with permeases for glucose, maltose, and maltotriose and the involvement of invertase in the periplasmic

space in sucrose transport. A diagram gained the candidate a point, but further points were only gained only if the mechanisms

were described.

Part (b) required an overview of glycolysis with an equation yielding pyruvate, ATP and NADH. The best answers also described of

the role of ATP in phosphorylating the sugars. In addition, further points were gained by describing the conversion of pyruvate to

ethanol that included an outline of the pathway. Better answers explained why yeast need to metabolise pyruvate into the

ethanol while regenerating NAD so glycolysis can continue. Answers that only included a diagram of glycolysis gained few points

without an explanation that showed an understanding of the pathway. No points were given for descriptions or diagrams of the

Krebs cycle, the electron transport chain or the order of sugar uptake.

2. i) Compare the following for traditional lager and ale yeast brewing :

a) Fermentation conditions

b) Maturation conditions

c) Yeast recovery [12]

ii) Briefly describe how lager and ale yeast can be differentiated in a brewery laboratory and the basis for the tests.[8]

This question was attempted by 287 candidates with an average mark of 8.2. Pass rate was 39%. The best answers included a

comparison of the time, temperature, speed and attenuation of the two fermentations. In addition, points were gained by being

able to describe typical times and temperatures for maturation. More points were awarded to those candidates that were able to

describe top cropping of ale yeast and bottom cropping of lager yeast. The more successful candidates opted to present their

answers in table form: this aided them in fully answering the question.

In part (ii) the best answers focused on methods that could be accomplished in a brewery laboratory, not an R&D lab. Most of the

points from this section were gained by discussing tests that are based on the ability of the two yeasts to grow at 37°C and their

ability to metabolise melibiose. Only one point each was given for a mention of PCR and the giant colony method, since these are

not commonly used in the brewing laboratory. Although candidates with practical knowledge of brewing did well in part (i), some

were not as familiar with laboratory procedures so did not gain many points in this section.

3. Describe the formation and control of the following yeast-related compounds:

a) vicinal diketones

b) acetaldehyde

c) esters [20]

This question was attempted by 294 candidates with an average mark of 7.6. Pass rate was 36%. The best papers described the

pathways that produced each of the compounds: an overview diagram that was accompanied by an explanation best achieved

this. A greater number of points were assigned to the vicinal diketones as their formation and control is more complex. More

points were awarded if the candidate understood the vicinal diketones included 2,3-pentanedione, as well as diacetyl (2.3-

butanedione).

In terms of control of these compounds, the best answers included a ‘factor’ and its effect on the compound and were

accompanied by clarifying statements. Some candidates effectively presented the information in table form. When describing the

control of these factors candidates achieved the maximum points when they specifically described the effect of a factor: for

example increasing wort aeration will result in a decrease in beer ester levels. Partial or no points were awarded for vague

answers such as, ester levels can be controlled by fermentation variables or optimum wort aeration controls esters. Similarly,

references to poor yeast viability or sluggish fermentations without specifics gained few or no points. This question was an

example of candidates losing points by not answering the question: for example; not describing both vicinal diketones or including

a discussion of bacteria-produced diacetyl, instead of restricting their discussion to yeast-produced diacetyl.

4. i) Briefly describe three laboratory methods for short and long term preservation of brewers yeast cultures, including

advantages and disadvantages. [10]

29

ii) Briefly describe the mechanisms of action, use, and advantages and disadvantages of three different process aids that are

used to remove haze proteins from beer. [10]

This question was attempted by 301 candidates with an average mark of 7.1. Pass rate was 34%. This was the most answered

question of the Module 2 exam. The best papers briefly described sub-culturing, lyophilisation, and cryopreservation and

provided their advantages and disadvantages. Points were equally distributed between the three methods. Points were given for

liquid nitrogen and deep freeze storage under cryopreservation. Even though it is mentioned in the revision notes, only a single

point was awarded for desiccation, since its use is not widespread. In some cases points were lost for candidates who knew the

names of the techniques, but provided few specifics.

The second part of this question asked about process aids that removed haze proteins. The best answers described the

mechanisms of action, use and advantages and disadvantages of tannic acid, silica gel and proteolytic enzymes. Equal points were

awarded to silica gel and proteolytic enzymes while fewer points were given for tannic acid, which needed less discussion. This

question was an example of candidates misreading the question: some gave more than three examples, although the examiners

only awarded points for the first three. In addition, some candidates provided information about PVPP, which removes

polyphenols: this did not gain them any points as it was out of the scope of the question.

5. i) Describe the following beer sensory evaluation tests and their applications:

a) Triangle

b) Paired comparison

c) Trueness to type [12]

ii) What procedures can be used during beer conditioning to improve beer flavour stability?[8]

This question was attempted by 206 candidates with an average mark of 5.1. Pass rate was 10%. The first part of this question

required a complete sequential description of each of the commonly utilized sensory evaluation techniques within a quality

management system. Good answers were distinctly bulleted which outlined the individual requirements (the environment) and

procedures, including a brief description of the statistical methods utilized to determine and establish a confidence interval. There

was a great tendency while answering this question to relate back to flavour evaluation that would typically be utilized for beer

judging events, and evaluation of “style”, which was not asked for in the question.

The second part of this question specifically requires the candidate to list methods/procedures, which will eliminate sources of

unfavourable additions, which reduce resistance to “stailing” whilst considering the conditioning practices. Good answers focused

upon the careful need to monitor/eliminate oxygen ingress through expansion, beer additions, tank filling and beer pipe

configurations (turbulence) and of course, CO2 purging of targeted tanks for filling operations. Additional points were also

awarded for a basic understanding of metal ion inclusion such as iron and copper which can accelerate the oxidative process

leading to beer poor flavour stability. This question did not require the candidates to outline the flavour improvements usually

achieved through the conditioning practices. Many candidates provided detail regarding sulphur removal, clarification, and

carbonation as examples, which improve flavour stability. These however are processes, which bring beers to flavour “maturity”

and provide other benefit by design, but have less impact on mechanisms, which maintain flavour stability through the remaining

processes and trade.

6. For the following micro-organisms describe their morphology, characteristics, and impact on beer flavour:

a) Lactobacillus

b) Megasphaera

c) Obesumbacterium

d) Brettanomyces [20]

This question was attempted by only 179 candidates with an average mark of 7.6. Pass rate was 36%. Candidates that obtained

exceptionally good marks utilized a chart, which outlined morphology, gram/catalase/oxidase reactions with brief descriptions of

metabolism which justifies these reactions. Importantly, description must be provided which outlined the damaging sensory

30

changes, which these organisms as a result of their specific metabolism and excreted by-products provide in beer. As a brief

example the statement of ‘acidity’ is acceptable, however, the understanding of the specific compound(s) producing this acidity is

required. This is especially true when considering the differing ‘types’ of fermentative capacity which lie within the genus

Lactobacillus, as a way to identify and differentiate, as well as when considering the management of risk.

7. Excluding haze stabilizers, describe ten possible additions during beer conditioning and finishing. Explain their purpose and

the reasons for point of addition. [20]

This question was attempted by 262 candidates with an average mark of 11.4. Pass rate was 77%. This specific question was well

answered by all of the candidates who chose to attempt it. The key statement in the question was to “describe” each addition.

Many excellent examples were given, demonstrating that a well-tuned understanding of how brewing materials, and process can

be changed and differentiated as well as managed while driving to bright beer production. Please remember that abbreviations

and trade-names are not acceptable without clarification of the materials composition.

8. i) Briefly describe the principles of beer filtration using Darcy's equation [5]

ii) Briefly describe the sequence of a "re-use" cleaning-in-place system of a horizontal leaf diatomaceous earth filter. Assume the

filter is empty of CO2 and beer and the diatomaceous earth has been removed. [5]

iii) Using the diagram provided, describe the process of diatomaceous earth filtration. Include the preparation of the equipment

and description of beer flow through the equipment. [10]

This question was attempted by 200 candidates with an average mark of 8.6. Pass rate was 48%. The first part of the question was

effectively detailed by a vast majority of the candidates in terms of understanding the equation and ability to replicate it with

accuracy. The second requirement of description was also managed well within most scripts. Good answers outlined an accurate

representation of the equation and discussed relative to flow rate, the changes expected when each of the variables change in

magnitude and direction.

The second part focuses upon the understanding of a re-use clean-in-place system. Good answers outlined the necessary steps of

a given system, noting milestones at each cycle completion such as a pH check, solution concentration requirements, etc. Good

answers also described the types of cleaning and sanitizing materials, and typical concentration levels typically utilized which are

available and might be used in such a system.

The last part of the question focused upon demonstrating understanding of how a commonly utilized type of beer filtration

equipment is operated. Good answers provided detail on the creation of pre-coat and body-feed materials in terms of mix ratio

and material particle diameters (grade) typically utilized in these processes. A description of pre-coating and filter preparation,

with a path noted for flow through the filter, and the function and timing of body-feed additions were required. Good examples

described completely the established flow as would be expected, fully utilizing the diagram as provided as a template, outlining

the important physical aspects of the filter. It is important that candidates have the ability not only to identify, but as well to

describe a typical beer/process pathway while studying beer-processing equipment. For example, beer passes into the filtration

shell via the beer/DE entry point “D” as shown in the diagram, etc.

Alistair Pringle and Tobin Eppard

31

Module 3 – Packaging and Process Technology



The average mark for all candidates was 46.2%. This compares with an average mark of 52% in 2013 and 55% in 2012.


A: 2% (10%)

B: 8% (15%)

C: 20% (20%)

D: 24% (18%)

E*: 4% (4%)

E: 22% (15%)

F: 14% (10%)

G: 6% (8%)

Section A – Packaging Technology

i) List all the different types of non-productive time on a small pack line. Explain how each of these should be taken into

consideration when planning the line. [8]

ii) Given the above considerations, propose the maximum total annual output, in hl per annum, for the following can line. List

and quantify the assumptions you have made:

Filler Speed – 1400 cans per minute

Can size – 330ml (10% of volume) 440ml (50% of volume)

500ml (40% of volume).

Shift pattern – 3 teams each working 5 shifts x 8 hours per week[12]

This question was attempted by 67 candidates with an average mark of 10.7. Pass rate was 70%. The first part of this question

invited candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and experience of both ‘Packaging Line Design Theory’ coupled with

‘Packaging line performance’. Whilst most were able to name the general categories of non-productive time consistent with the

revision notes, only a few provide sufficient detail to concisely explain how these elements ‘should be taken into consideration

when planning the line’.

In the second part, the majority of candidates took a simplistic approach and made a calculation directly from the data provided

and failed to take the opportunity to build on the list derived in part (i) to demonstrate their knowledge theoretical or otherwise

to quantify assumptions in determining the annual output capacity.

2. i) With the aid of diagrams, describe in detail the manufacturing processes for one of the following primary packages:

a) Two piece can

b) Non-returnable glass bottle [14]

ii) Describe how the quality specifications of your chosen primary package can be assured in the packaging plant. [6]

This question was attempted by 169 candidates with an average mark of 9.0. Pass rate was 56%. Ideally this question required an

answer listing in sequential order all the key manufacturing steps, with the significance of each step concisely describe and

including relevant operational features and parameters.

For Two - piece can manufacture. Whilst the stock material and main process steps including secondary processing and finishing

were answered with evidence of some knowledge, the body forming process steps were very poorly described, illustrated and

32

annotated and only one candidate made any reference to sizing the body for differing volumes. The ‘end’ manufacturing process

knowledge was even less well described and with all but a few exceptions answers did not give evidence of a good

comprehension of the manufacturing process, typically absent being references to scoring , tab attachment forming / attachment

and end size – e.g. 206 -208. As for part ii) ... contrary to the part (i) this part of the question was uncharacteristically well

answered and evidence given on the “how” quality specifications are assured was generally well documented.

The NRB manufacturing process was chosen by most candidates answering this question however, many weighted their answer

unnecessarily by describing, with the inclusion of annotated diagrams, the glass making process which was to the detriment of the

detail required of the forming process of Narrow Neck Press Blow (NNPB) and secondary processes characteristic of NRB

production. Albeit not an isolated case this illustrates the importance of answering specifically the question asked and hence the

time and mark opportunity lost. As for ‘NRB’ part ii) most candidates were able to comprehensively list the quality assurances

activities but very few made reference in the ‘how’, to the importance of volumetric checks or evidence expected for that of a

‘measuring container’.

3. i) Define the terms “pasteurisation” and “pasteurisation unit”, illustrating with diagrams the relationship between time,

temperature and lethal rate. [6]

ii) Draw a diagram of a single-deck tunnel pasteuriser for a bottle line, identifying how both energy and water consumption can

be optimised.[8]

iii) List the routine checks that are made to ensure that the tunnel pasteuriser is operating effectively and that product

specifications are being met.[6]

This question was attempted by 179 candidates with an average mark of 9.5. Pass rate was 64%. This question, being the most

popular to be answered in Section A, was generally answered with variable knowledge quality and some illustrative inaccuracies.

Pasteurisation – Pasteurisation unit. For the first part most were able to make the simple distinction between statistical kill and

sterilization and to define 1Pu = I min @1°C and to recall the equation 1Pu = t x 1.303(T-60). However, marks were awarded to

those making reference to the work of Del Vecchio (1950) and Louis Pasteur together with illustrations and explanations

distinguishing the relationships between time, temperature and lethal rate also decimal reduction value D and temperature values

Z.

It should be recognised by candidates that generally the first part of a question i.e. Part (i) leads into another and in this respect

the diagram of a single deck tunnel pasteuriser should not merely be a process flow diagram but also illustrate the normal

operational parameters especially the “Pasteurisation” temperature profile and the zones (7-9) that are typically employed. It is

from this aspect that the routes for recycling of water and heat can be best detailed including how both energy and water can be

best optimised. Some candidates failed to recognise this, and merely presented and monochrome flow diagram with simple and

often confused lines. The best solutions employed coloured diagrams and included the external components to support heating

and waste heat recovery especially with the impact of line stoppage.

It was surprising to find many answers which did not list the routine checks in order of significance and/or priority and hence

answer were vague and often incomplete ... in future candidates might as a technique attempt such questions by structuring their

answers by category e.g. Operational Checks – Pasteurisation checks – Quality assurance/control – Maintenance.

4. Write notes on the methodology and ‘best practice’ for four of the following:

a) Bottle label application.

b) Empty bottle inspection.

c) Measurement of small pack oxygen.

d) Can seam evaluation.

e) Large pack contents checking.

f) Small-pack filler CIP. [5 marks each] [20]

33

This question was attempted by 73 candidates with an average mark of 6.8. Pass rate was 26%. It was apparent than a number of

candidates whom attempted this question failed to appreciate the meaning of the word methodology, and as a result failed to

answer competently.

a) Bottle label application. For this question a flow diagram of say, a 2 station labelling machine would be the most effective

and efficient way of illustrating the method of operation. Such a diagram is expected to be fully annotated with a sequential

reference to indicate and enable the operational flow to be described and hence “best practice” attributes to be included. The

features of neck foiling are not asked for in this question however, reference to the range of adhesive types and the correct

storage and parameters thereof, including the labels, plus reference to the legislative and quality duties that labelling achieves is

expected as part of the best practice definitions

b) Empty Bottle inspection (EBI). Modern EBI equipment generally employs a combination of camera and ultrasonic

technology. The duty and hence the methodology and deployment of EBI’s in production was required in the answer, and to give

context an approached which categorised required bottle inspection features e.g. i) internal, ii) external, iii) plant locations, iv)

routine checks-validation would have avoided candidates risking of omissions and vague answers.

c) Measurement of small pack oxygen. Most candidates were able to describe the 2 approaches, either: (i) Separate head

and product measurements combined to and make theoretical determination (TPA) ... and ... (ii) Total in package (TIPO) ‘preferred

method’. However few candidates took the opportunity to briefly explained the deficiencies in the methodology of (i) and hence

the best practice approach arising from (ii)

d) Can seam evaluation. The ‘Best practice’ answers from candidates required a competent knowledge of seam evaluation

methods rather than mere theory. Well-structured answers for the tear down assessment were evident in some cases, however

very few candidates made comment on the relevant importance of seamer operational checks and professional maintenance.

e) Large pack contents checking. Generally a well answered question by all whom attempted with both weighing and

volumetric filling methods being outlined. It the context of ‘Best practice’ only 4 candidates made mention the importance of

spear torque testing post filling and only 1 candidate made referred to the use of transponders.

f) Small-pack filler CIP. The logical starting point might be for candidates to define the overall aim and objective of the CIP

regime and list any considerations e.g. Hot/ Cold/ Aseptic / Internal Pipework / External pipework & Ancillary equipment. Answers

were generally poor, lacked a process flow diagram, process sequence details and with the few exceptions failed to describe the

necessary preparatory steps required of both bottle & can filler.

5. i) Explain, with reference to the relevant physical principles, how the level of carbonation in beer is affected by temperature

and pressure. [6]

ii) Calculate the average CO2 content, in g litre-1, of beer held at 2°C in a filtered beer tank if the CO2 top pressure is left applied

at 1.2 bar absolute until equilibrium is established.

The filtered beer tank is cylindrical and the height of beer in it is 10 m. Henry’s constant for beer at 2°C is 84.1 x 103 kPa mole

fraction-1.

Data:

Density of beer = 1005 kg m-3

Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 ms-2

1 bar = 100 kPa

Relative molecular weight CO2 = 44

Relative molecular weight of beer assumed to be 18 [8]

iii) Explain the difficulties of reducing the CO2 content of a beer prior to packaging,

and the possible implications that any such procedures may have on beer quality. [6]

34

This question was attempted by 121 candidates with an average mark of 8.8. Pass rate was 52%.

In part (i) the ideal gas law ... PV=mRt and Henry’s law.... P=H.x (where x is the Mol fraction and H = Henry’s constant) featured as

statements in most answers, and the effects of temperature and pressure were to be easily covered with simple graphical charts

to reflect the relationships in that ‘solubility decreases with either temperature and/or pressure increase’.

In part (ii) marked papers showed differing approaches to determining the partial pressure and the required correct value of ca 1.7

Bar (abs), so much so, that it was significant that generally those who were in error had not prepared themselves at the outset

with a process diagram on which the controlling boundary was clearly identified. It therefore follows by the application of Henry’s

law to determine the Mol fraction “x” of CO₂ that the calculation can then be made to determine the Mol fraction of CO₂ in beer,

and by re arranging the equation the final calculation can be made to yield the concentration of 4.95 [g/l].

At low temperatures beer prior to packaging is resistant to CO₂ scavenging and N₂ purging especially as the former may potentially

cause super-saturation, layering and ultimately fobbing and even gushing. Operationally the consequences of the above give rise

to contamination of vessel values & vents and CO₂ recovery pipework, whilst the cost of N₂, Co₂ , Energy and Beer waste should

not be discounted nor should the detrimental effect on quality, flavour, clarity and haze to name but a few be ignored.

Phil Worlsey

Section B – Process Technology

6. i) With use of simple diagrams, describe two types of positive displacement pump and one application for each in a brewery

process. [4]

ii) Define the term “equivalent pipe diameters” of pipe fittings and equipment and explain their use in calculating pressure

losses in pipe work systems. [3]

iii) Explain how cavitation occurs and its detrimental effect on brewery systems. [2]

iv) A centrifugal pump is to be employed to empty a fermenting vessel into a maturation vessel. The fermenting vessel is open

to atmospheric pressure but the maturation vessel is maintained at 1.0 bar gauge (100 kPa). On completion of transfer the

maturation vessel is filled to 25 metres depth. Neglecting any losses through pipe fittings, and stating any assumptions and

approximations;

a) using the appended Pipe Friction Chart, and assuming smooth pipes, calculate the friction factor for losses in the pipework.[2]

Note that the pressure drop due to friction along a pipe is given by:

Where:

ΔP = Pressure drop (Pa)

f = friction factor

ρ = fluid density (kg m-3)

L = pipe length (m)

v = mean fluid velocity in pipe (m s-1)

d = inside diameter of pipe (m)

b) set out the Bernoulli energy balance equation which describes the system at maximum pump power demand.[4]

c) calculate the pump power requirement at maximum demand.[5]

35

Data:

Pipe inside diameter = 100 mm

Connecting pipe length = 50 m

Distance of pump below fermenter vessel = 1.5 m

Distance of pump below maturation vessel = 2.0 m

Mean flow velocity along pipe = 1.5 m s-1

Pump efficiency = 60%

Density of beer = 1007 kg m-3

Beer viscosity = 0.002 Pa s

Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m s-2

This question was attempted by 103 candidates with an average mark of 7.6. Pass rate was 44%. This question tested the

candidate’s understanding of liquid processing in breweries. The answers supplied give a clear indication of the relative strengths

and weaknesses of this year’s candidates in this area. Most candidates demonstrated understanding of the nature of positive

displacement pumps and their applications. Drawings however were usually poor, good marks required a level of detail above the

basic, such as lubrication or valve systems. The majority of candidates understood equivalent pipe diameters and a good

explanation indicating its use gained good marks. Again most candidates understood the nature of cavitation and two detrimental

effects to process were required for all marks.

The calculation part of the question was poorly answered by most candidates that reflected the low pass rate overall. Most

candidates could calculate Reynold’s Number and from there most could read the friction factor from the chart, although a lot

carelessly misread the scales of the plot. The examiner was disappointed to note that when asked to ‘set out the Bernoulli…’ most

candidates only set out the kinetic, head and pressure components. The pump energy and frictional loss components were most

often missing. The Bernoulli equation will be a common requirement in this examination, and candidates are advised to ready

themselves accordingly. Some candidates partially rescued themselves by introducing the missing terms into the calculation later

in the question. For the calculation I would emphasise that a diagram of the system will help the candidate and was also rewarded

with a mark. The calculation resulted in a value of approximately 7.1 kW.

7. i) Illustrate, using a labelled flow diagram, the main components of a refrigeration system comprising both primary and

secondary refrigeration circuits. [4]

ii) Explain the difference between a primary and secondary refrigerant, giving examples of both. Briefly list the advantages and

disadvantages of direct and indirect refrigeration systems. [8]

iii) Sketch a Mollier pressure-enthalpy diagram of a typical primary refrigerant. Use the diagram(s) to illustrate:

a) Regions of liquid, vapour and mixed phases

b) An ideal, theoretical refrigeration cycle

c) The manner in which an actual refrigeration cycle deviates from the ideal [6]

Why is it important that the actual cycle deviates from the ideal? [2]

This question was attempted by 142 candidates with an average mark of 11.9. This question was the best answered with a 74%

pass rate. The diagram required in part (i) was a simple block diagram illustrating how an indirect system links with the primary

system at the evaporator. Refreshingly some candidates put more detail than was actually required, including some examples of

how refrigeration systems are operated around vessels.

Most candidates were able to define primary and secondary refrigerants and give an example of each. Four marks were available

for the relative advantages and disadvantages of each and this was less well answered. There were several possible answers

including operator safety and consequent increased legislative responsibilities, loss of efficiency with an indirect system and the

relative ease and costs of distribution.

36

Only a minority of candidates acquired all the marks available from the Mollier diagram. Future candidates should note that the

diagram is very useful not just to illustrate the refrigeration cycle but to enable performance calculations. Most candidates who

achieved a pass mark knew that the non-ideal cycle is important to protect the compressor and extend refrigeration capacity.

8. i) Describe with the aid of diagrams the mechanical features of a counter-current plate heat exchanger in a brewery,

particularly emphasising the process flows. [7]

ii) Cooling of a wort for fermentation is to take place in a plate heat exchanger operated in counter-current mode. The wort is to

be cooled from 99ºC to 10ºC. Cooling water is required to be raised to 85ºC. Use the following data to calculate:

a) the inlet water temperature required. [3]

b) the internal surface area requirement for the heat exchanger. [6]

Data:

Wort flow rate = 200 hl h-1

Wort density = 1065 kg m-3

Specific heat capacity of wort = 4.0 kJ kg-1 K-1

Cooling water flow rate = 230 hl h-1

Cooling water density = 1000 kg m-3

Specific heat capacity of water = 4.2 kJ kg-1 K-1

Overall heat transfer coefficient for the plate heat exchanger = 3.5 kW m-2 K-1

iii) Explain, with examples as appropriate, why counter-current heat exchange is preferred in some situations and co-current

heat exchange in others. [4]

This question was attempted by 183 candidates with an average mark of 10.3. Pass rate was 62%. Again the standard of diagrams

was most often poor. Only a small minority of candidates demonstrated that they actually understood how genuine counter-

current heat exchange works. Flow of each stream should alternate vertical direction every two plates. More marks were acquired

with suitable structural illustrations of the plates such as gaskets, distribution ports and indentations to increase heat transfer

efficiency.

The calculations were relatively straightforward examples. Calculation of inlet water temperature required the calculation of the

net transferred energy from the supplied data. The answer came out as 6.5°C. The optimum solution for calculation of plate area

utilised Log Mean Temperature Difference. Credit was also given with a small deduction if other values for mean temperature

difference were calculated. The calculated area was 79.5m2.

Counter-current heat exchange enables more efficient process and thus a smaller unit. An example would be a plate wort cooler

as described in the calculation. Co-current heat exchange should be employed if there is a danger of one liquid stream freezing

and blocking the unit. An example would be a beer chiller in the beer processing areas.

9. i) Explain why mild steel is not a suitable material of construction for contact with beer. [3]

ii) Define the term stainless steel and explain its suitability for brewery applications. [3]

iii) Discuss the differences in composition of 316 and 304 stainless steel alloys employed in breweries. [4]

iv) Write notes on two of the following forms of corrosion of stainless steel. Describe both physical and chemical conditions that

may increase corrosion rate. What are the options when selecting stainless steel composition that may help reduce this

corrosion rate?

a) Pitting

b) Weld decay

c) Stress corrosion cracking (5 marks each) [10]

37

This question was attempted by 131 candidates with an average mark of 9.6. Pass rate was 64%. The main reasons that mild steel

is unsuitable for beer processing include a lack of resistance to caustic and acid detergents, pick-up of damaging metal ions and

the safety of operators. A mark was obtained for each valid reason.

Stainless steel contains at least 12% chromium. Its corrosion resistance stems from the rapid formation of a surface layer of

chromium oxide. This was well understood by the majority of candidates. Many candidates provided excellent answers to the

comparison of 304 and 316 alloys. Both have in excess of 17.5% and more than 8% nickel. 316 also has more than 2%

molybdenum. Many candidates mentioned the low carbon “L” versions to minimise carbon precipitation at welds.

The notes on corrosion were of very variable quality. The examiner notes that stress corrosion cracking seemed to be particularly

well understood. Weld decay was poorly understood by a large number of candidates. Good answers stated process conditions

that increase corrosion rate (for example chloride ions increase stress corrosion cracking rate), a physical description of the

corrosion effect (for example pitting can occur below the surface making it difficult to observe) and means to minimise corrosion

rates (for example the use of grades that have titanium or niobium added to minimise weld decay).

10. i) With the aid of a diagram, describe the main features of a shell and tube boiler. Include the main process flows and

features that are often present for control of steam production. [8]

ii) Describe some techniques that are available to improve the efficiency of the boiler. [5]

iii) Natural gas is burned in a shell and tube boiler for steam generation. While operating at a steady-state demand the

brewhouse requirement is 3.0 tonne/hour of dry saturated steam at 3.0 bar gauge pressure. Condensate is returned to the

boiler at atmospheric pressure. Using the following data:

a) calculate the mass flow requirement of the gas (kg h-1), stating any assumptions that you make. [5]

b) calculate the dryness fraction of the condensate immediately after it leaves the brewhouse. [2]

Data:

Boiler efficiency = 73%

Enthalpy of dry saturated steam at 3 bar g. = 2738 kJ kg-1

Enthalpy of dry saturated steam at 0 bar g. = 2676 kJ kg-1.

Enthalpy of dry saturated water at 3 bar g. (144ºC) = 603 kJ kg-1

Enthalpy of dry saturated water at 0 bar g. (100ºC) = 419 kJ kg-1

Net enthalpy of combustion of natural gas = 45.6 MJ kg-1

This question was attempted by 39 candidates with an average mark of 5.9. This question was by far the least popular of section

3B and also had an extremely low pass rate at just 28%. This is rather disappointing when one considers that the content of the

question is an integral part of the vast majority of brewery production.

The quality of drawings of the shell and tube boiler was in general very poor. The key components and also control points were

often omitted. Control features include water level, blowdown valve, gas composition (often oxygen and carbon monoxide) of flue

gases and steam pressure. The examiner assumes that the lack of understanding of this part of the question put off the majority of

candidates.

The question on techniques to improve efficiency was quite well answered by some candidates. Techniques include good practices

such as well fitted insulation and cleanliness of internals, as well as technological solutions such as an economiser or preheating

combustion air by drawing it through the boiler’s shell.

Candidates should note that as with most energy balance equations a simple diagram to describe the problem will help the

candidate. To calculate the gas flow rate it was necessary to realise that condensate return would be at atmospheric pressure. Gas

flow rate was calculated to be 209 kg/h. The dryness fraction calculation (answer 8.1%) was not well answered. The dryness is

38

caused by flashing off steam as the pressure of the condensate is reduced. It is calculated from the enthalpy balance between 3

bar condensate that is reduced to a mixture of atmospheric steam and water.

Gary Freeman

39

DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING 2014

Module 1

The examination was sat by 65 candidates, compared with 32 candidates in 2013 and 38 candidates in 2012. The pass rate for the

examination this year was 66%. This compares with a pass rate in 2013 of 68%.

The average mark for all candidates was 55%. This compares with an average mark of 58% in 2013.


A: 1%

B: 12%

C: 26%

D: 26%

Fail: 34%

Unit 1.1: Packaging Theory and Materials

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the impact that the choice of production materials and their

specifications can have on the performance of your production line.

For a small pack production line of your choice, provide a flow diagram of the line, highlighting and explaining all points where

material quality is recorded as having an impact on line performance. [5]

Explain how material quality is measured, recorded and tracked, and what follow up actions are then taken as a result of this.

[6]

Select two of the materials which have the highest impact on the line performance, provide a detailed explanation of an

improvement plan for each material and detail how these support a clear improvement in line performance.[14]

70 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of 12, with the range of scores from 3 to 20.

Well completed answers started with a detailed flow diagram of the line which showed each of the machines on the line with clear

information on where each of the materials is introduced into the line, and it’s potential impact on the line performance. Key

points expected here were the different failures which the materials could cause to the line – but these descriptions were

expected to be brief, in line with the 5 marks allocated for this section.

The second section of this assignment was looking for a candidate to describe their processes for material quality management.

The majority of candidates covered the main aspects of this process (material tracking, supplier quality assurance) but the details

provided in the follow up actions (such as hold / inspection processes, supplier audits etc) were limited to only a few candidates

scripts.

The final section gave the candidates the opportunity to demonstrate that they had spent time on their chosen line, and this was

demonstrated through a clear and coherent rationale for why the two materials had been chosen. Better submissions provided

line data / pareto analysis of downtime, supported by the actions taken to address the material failures with a further follow up

analysis showing the improvements starting to come into effect. The stronger submissions also provided the details of the action

plan, including the methods of analysis of the problem areas and how each of the conclusions and improvements had been

generated, as well as who had taken the ownership for

Short Answer Questions:

65 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 25, with the scores ranging from 9 to 37.

40

Overall the breadth of knowledge demonstrated in this section of the exam was good, and tended to be better than in previous

years. Candidates were clear over the different definitions and types of packaging material associated with these, although the

knowledge of the technical and marketing functions of the materials was very variable. Whilst the general knowledge areas were

good, a significant number of candidates demonstrated a very poor knowledge of the glass manufacturing process – both in terms

of identifying the different types of process used to create bottles and also the equipment and process steps which were used.

Long Answer Questions:

1. Draw a flow diagram of the empty can manufacturing process, labelling each key stage of the process. [10]

Using a table compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of cans over two other types of primary packaging

materials. [15]

List the key different design features of steel and aluminium cans. [10]

62 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 6 and 29, with an average score of 17.

The first part of this question was generally very well answered, with candidates providing clear, well labelled flow diagrams of the

process to produce the empty cans – with both two and three piece can production processes described. Some candidates lost

time here by providing a detailed description of the process, which was not required, and therefore consumed time which could

have been better used on the second two parts of the question.

The second and third parts of this question however varied tremendously in terms of detail and formatting. For the second part of

the question a significant number of candidates did not use a tabular format to document the comparison of the can with other

materials. This meant there was a high level of repetition of information which again would have cost the candidate significant

amounts of time. The majority of candidates compared cans with glass and PET bottles, but some also chose a bottle format and a

keg, which helped to give a better spread within the comparison of the different features. Some candidates provided one

statement for cans, and then provided the reverse statement for the other materials, rather than stating the clear differences.

Strong candidates also used a ranking system to differentiate between the different materials.

For the final part of this question there were some very poor answers – potentially where candidates had run out of time, but as

the submissions were generally weak across the majority of the submissions, this would tend to suggest that this is more of a

general gap in candidates’ knowledge.

2. Draw a flow diagram of the manufacturing processes used to produce an empty 50 litre stainless steel keg, labelling each key

stage of the process. [15]

List any steps which should also be observed when running a new batch of kegs on the production line for the first time. [10]

List the key advantages and disadvantages of using a PET keg over one made from stainless steel. [10]

Only 3 candidates chose to answer this question (which is perhaps an indication that this was not a topic which had been well

studied,) and all three submissions were very poor with marks ranging between 0 and 4. All three candidates failed to notice that

the question was around the production processes required to produce the actual keg, and all provided flow diagrams for a keg

filling line instead. Only one candidate even attempted details of checks required for running new kegs for the first time on the

line – as this should have covered a wide variety of aspects from quality inspection, batch weight checks, fill levels, microbiological

contamination and forcing trials for shelf life.

The final part of the question was also very poorly answered, with limited descriptions of the comparison between PET and

stainless kegs – mainly restricted to weight and reusability, whereas a much broader range of topics could have been covered.

Ruth Bromley

41

Unit 1.2: Beer Preparation

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the filtration and pasteurisation operations in use within your site,

and how these compare to alternate methods which are also available. (If your site does not have an operational filtration

system you will need to organise attendance at an appropriate location.)

With the aid of clearly labelled diagrams or photographs describe a beer filtration process in use at your own site. Compare this

to other beer filtration possibilities, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative processes. [12]

Explain why is it often necessary to further pasteurize the beer and describe the methods which can be used for this and their

influences on the finished product. Within your submission, critically analyze the pasteurization methods discussed, explaining

which parameters are important and how can you vary them to improve product quality and to optimize water and energy

consumption. [13]


Overall most candidates provided a good description of their own beer filtration process, accompanied by a process flow diagram,

with the better candidates also providing additional photographs to support their explanations. When comparing their own

filtration process with other filtration options, a significant variety of the levels of detail started to occur. Better candidates

compared their process with two or three other types of filtration, with the clearest submissions using a table to display this

information.

For the second part of the assignment, whilst most candidates could explain why pasteurization was used, but a significant

number of these only covered one method of pasteurization, rather than looking at both tunnel and flash pasteurization. As a

result of only one method being used in the first part of the answer, the second half of this question was also then poorly

answered by a number of candidates – as again only one method was being discussed. The final section regarding water and

energy optimization was very poorly answered, and was generally restricted to water recycling – rather than addressing the

broader options which could be included – such as management of cooling towers for temperature control, management of

product flows to minimise recirculation, the use of variable speed control drives etc.


56 candidates sat the exam and achieved an average score of 22, with the scores ranging from 9 to 35.5.

Overall, it was apparent that most candidates had a good general understanding of the module. Questions pertaining to beer

preparation in the brewhouse and fermentation areas were answered well, however there was more variability when it came to

maturation and filtration. In particular, a question which required a graph to illustrate aspects of beer filtration was answered very

poorly, or indeed left blank by some. It would also appear that more attention needed to be paid to brewing water characteristics.

It was surprising that some candidates did not even guess a multiple choice answer and instead decided to leave it blank. In some

other instances, candidates choose more answers than required in which case the score has to be zero.


1. Draw and label a diagram showing the operation of a flash pasteurizer, including all flows. [15]

Explain how the pasteurization operation occurs within this system. [10]

Highlight any areas which may lead to over and under pasteurization and what actions are required to isolate stock affected by

these incidents. [10]

44 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 1 and 31.5, with an average score of 17.

42

Overall, the diagrams of a flash pasteuriser that were produced were very good. The excellent candidates used different colour

pens with clear legends and identification of the drawing. In general, if the diagram was good then the explanation of the

pasteurisation operation was also good. However, some misunderstood the question and instead described the formula for

calculating PU’s. A lot of candidates failed to mention the importance of SCADA traces and their role in recording PU’s and keeping

them within the required parameters. More detail could have also been provided on how the heat regeneration section operates,

and in particular the rate of heat efficiency.

The third part of the question was answered very poorly in comparison to the first two. Some candidates gave very specific

examples of over and under pasteurization as opposed to providing a general list of examples which should have included line

issues, plant failure, control failure and incorrect setpoints as the answer. Some candidates failed to describe any actions at all.

Whilst others that attempted to answer this left out the importance of tasting, micro analysis and the HFI procedure.

2. List the advantages and disadvantages of high gravity brewing and give a brief explanation of each of these. [15]

High gravity beer will require both dilution and carbonation prior to packaging.

a. Explain how the amount of water required for product dilution is calculated, giving an example of this. [5]

b. Draw a process flow diagram of how one type of beer carbonator system operates and give a brief explanation

of this. [15]


In general this question was not answered very well. Many candidates failed to even attempt to answer the final two parts of the

question (product dilution equation and carbonator system flow diagram).

The first section of the question was answered the best and most provided an adequate list of high gravity brewing advantages

and disadvantages as per the module learning material. However, some candidates did not provide the required brief explanation

of those advantages/disadvantages, thereby losing marks.

Most that attempted to answer the product dilution calculation part of the question did not do very well. One candidate gave the

correct equation, but did not provide any numbers to illustrate the equation importance and use in brewing. More attention

needs to be paid to this part of the revision notes.

Only a couple of candidates drew a suitable carbonator system process flow diagram. Some candidates may have misunderstood

the question and instead drew where the carbonator is located in the process. There were also a lot of answers that did not

provide any explanation of how the carbonator actually works. This part of the question accounted for a lot of marks, and it was

disappointing to see such poor answers provided or even lack of attempt to answer.

Ruth Bromley & Tracy Adie

Unit 1.3: Planning and Line Design

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand how the key principles of line design are integrated and applied in the

design of a packaging line.

On a nominated packaging line of your choice you are required to review the design status for this line by identifying and

selecting 3 key line design principles that you will use in this review, and please provide a justification for the selection of these.

[5]

Explain how you conducted the review of the line design status against these 3 selected principles, and what operational

parameters, key performance indicators and productivity and waste targets you used to benchmark and evaluate the line

43

status. You are encouraged to provide/include sketches, diagrams, visual aids to support your explanation of the respective

processes used to do the review. [15]

62 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of 14, with the range of scores from 2 to 22.5.

Candidates that submitted good assignments covered the assignment content comprehensively, with well substantiated content

and support material. They demonstrated a good understanding of line design, the key principals selected for review, and

application of the review process.

Students with satisfactory scores generally scored lower in the aspects of the review undertaken, with generally less

substantiation and quantification of aspects reviewed, and a lower level of understanding of line design and application of the

principals selected.

The weaker and poor submissions were less well structured, with little in-depth substantiation and substance to the review and

application of the selected design principals, with little to no detailed elaboration of aspects tabled or recommendations made.

Although registered for this unit, 10 students did not submit, or withdrew from submitting an assignment.

There were a high number of candidates requesting extension to the due date, and also a high number of ‘late’ submissions

requiring chasing/follow-up by IBD Admin department. A number were received as late as five days after due date. A firm

ruling/procedure should be established for the management of late submissions with either non-acceptance (0 score) for no

acceptable/authorised justification, and/or a penalty score for late submission.


65 Candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 16.5, with the scores ranging from 0 to 39 out of 40 marks.

This section of the exam paper focuses on determining the candidates’ breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter. The

average scores were lower than the targeted minimum of 50%.

The weaker responses were spread across all areas covered in the questions and of concern is the lack of understanding of some

of the fundamental aspects of line design in the areas of conveyor accumulation, definition of planning/forecasting concepts and

key packaging operational loss factors and measures.


1. Prepare a table which summarises and outlines the key outcomes of the review and table your respective recommendations

to improve the line design deficiencies identified. [5]

Prepare a Project brief for a new returnable bottling line to be procured and installed in the packaging department. The brief is

required to cover the key operational capacity requirements for this line.

(a) Using a tabular format prepare a set of requirements for the line with brief supporting explanation/commentary on

rationale for these, in the areas of :

• Operation duration – weeks/annum

• Activity levels – start up /shut down, shift changes, hours worked, number of shifts, etc.

• Maintenance and cleaning provisions/requirements

• Brand and pack change requirements/frequencies

• Seasonality/sales peaks[15]

(b) Using the assumptions tabled in Part (a)above, demonstrate/explain how you would determine the net available hours per

week for production, having factored in the key downtime considerations for the areas considered and discussed in part (a)

above. Provide supporting explanation where appropriate. [15]

44

Assume: 120 hours per week, 3 shift operation,8 hour shifts,50000BPH – 500ml pack,85% machine efficiency,4 brands with equal

share to be packaged each week.

(c) Determine a projected annual output and operational efficiency for this line incorporating the appropriate data and

assumptions tabled in (a) and (b). [5]

19 Candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 0 and 33, with an average score of 19.

This question focuses on determining the student’s understanding of the operational capacity requirements for a returnable

packaging line and how to incorporate and apply these in determining available operational hours, projected annual output and

operational efficiency for the pack line.

The higher scoring students demonstrated a good understanding of the key requirements and elements incorporated into

determining and planning capacity, with relevant supporting explanation and assumptions, and appropriate quantification of

requirements.

The weaker submissions did not identify the key requirements, and consequently struggled to fully quantify and explain the

responses tabled. These candidates should be fully exposed to, and participate in capacity planning determination/exercises on

their respective pack lines and packaging operations to gain experience and build on the content covered in the IBD learning

material.

2. Operational performance –“The primary goal is to ensure that the key machine is down for as short a time as possible” –

Source: IBD Learning Material.

The filler is the prime machine on a modern packaging line and optimum efficiencies are achieved by reducing waste and losses

to a minimum.

Identify FIVE areas of waste/loss on a bottle filling operation with which the candidate is familiar. [5]

Outline how these have been determined and measured. [10]

What potential causes has been identified by respective area. [10]

How these can be improved and/or corrected, and, what systemic procedures have or will be introduced to prevent re-

occurrence of these areas of waste/loss. [10]

46 Candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 5 and 27.5, with an average score of 17.

This question focuses on the candidates’ capability to cover five key examples in the areas of downtime loss/equipment failure,

speed losses, defect losses, change-over and set-up losses, start/shut losses and material loss, and outline and demonstrate

understanding of the related measures, KPI’s and management systems relative to the examples and areas covered, with evidence

of root cause analysis and identification of potential cause/s by area and corrective action proposals.

The higher scoring students covered the question and the sub sections comprehensively, with well clarified examples, KPI’s and

problem/cause analysis and quantification, and good supporting corrective action proposals/recommendations.

The poorer scoring responses were listed ‘one liners’, with little substantiation or quantification, and the majority of these poor

submissions did not attempt to cover Part C or make any systemic improvement/preventative recommendations in this section.

Gavin Duffy

45

Unit 1.4: Small Pack Operations

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the purpose and principles of full product line inspection equipment

and how the functionality of inspection equipment ensures product and package integrity.

For a bottle or can line of your choice, describe in detail the operation of full product inspection equipment. Describe each piece

of equipment, its purpose and how it operates. Identify its capability and tolerances. Include actual results from each piece of

equipment and the standards set for the line. [15]

Explain how the inspection equipment is managed, maintained and calibrated and the procedure for changeover between

different package types. [10]

65 candidates submitted this assignment with a range of scores from 35% to 93% and an average of 57%.

19 candidates did not pass this assignment as their submission lacked the basics of a good assignment report. In many cases the

assignment report did not address the question with reference to measuring equipment used on the line when the question

centred around inspection equipment. A number of candidates also focussed on empty bottle inspection equipment when the

scope was for full product inspection equipment. There was little or no structure to some reports and some of the basic elements

of easy to read, structure, references and the correct number of words were not adhered to. The weaker reports did not cover

equipment capability and limitations and in some cases the answer seemed to come from an equipment manual rather than an

investigation on the line which is the purpose of an assignment. Many submissions lacked actual results and equipment standards

which were needed to show that the candidate understood how the equipment operated.

The satisfactory submissions demonstrated a knowledge of how inspection equipment worked and contained detailed information

on maintenance regimes, calibration procedures and changeover procedures.

Good submissions covered all the inspection equipment with the use of photographs to illustrate and described in detail the

different operating principles of the equipment. Analysis of results and the impact on the line was also important. To produce a

good report and therefore to improve the candidates understanding spend some time on the packaging line and truly understand

the working principles of equipment and link this to operation, maintenance, calibration and changeovers. A thorough

understanding of actual results and action to be taken from these results will ensure a competence and increase capability.


This unit had the weakest candidate scoring 14 marks and the best scoring 38 marks out of 40. The average score was 26 which

shows that in general the paper was well answered. There were no particular trends of questions which were not well answered

and most candidates demonstrated a good range of knowledge from bottle washing to can filling and seaming. Some candidates

had little understanding of PSL labelling which should be an area of focus.


1. Explain with the aid of diagrams each stage of the bottle filling process. [15]

For each stage of the process explain the effect on quality of the finished product if the process parameters are incorrectly set or

there are deviations in the operation at this stage. [15]

List the benefits and constraints of aseptic filling. [5]

46 candidates answered question 1 with an average score 17 out of 35 marks . The range was 5 marks to 27 marks with only 19

candidates passing the question.

The question was poorly answered with those who did not pass the question only including very basic drawings and explanations

of the filling process. The answer must describe each stage of the filling process with the aid of illustrations. Most candidates

46

attempted the first part of the question but only the successful candidates attempted part 2 which required a description of some

of the process parameters ( settings , pressures, temperatures etc ) and the effect on quality of not setting these correctly. The

third part of the question was badly answered ( and in many cases not answered at all) . A simple list of benefits and constraints

of aseptic filling would have achieved 5 marks. In general many answers lacked detail.

2. Describe the different types of secondary packaging which may be used for packaging either glass bottles or cans. [15]

Choose one type of secondary packaging and using diagrams describe the packing equipment required, the principal features of

the packaging operation and the quality assurance measures which are in place to ensure a robust pack. [15]

For the packaging machine chosen list the safety procedures which apply to this machine. [5]

19 candidates answered question 2 with an average score of 18 marks out of 35 marks. The range was 1 mark to 35 marks with

only 8 out of the 19 candidates passing the question.

There were some really poor answers with some candidates only writing a couple of lines. A simple list with a little explanation of

different types of secondary packaging eg cartons , baskets, wraps etc would have been the basis of the answer for the first part

of the question. The second part required the candidate to choose a packing machine and describe its basic operation for

cans/bottles in to packs out. A description of QA procedures was then required . The safety question was not answered by all

candidates but a simple list of safety procedures and why they were necessary would have sufficed.

Angus Steven

Module 2

The examination was sat by 22 candidates, compared with 33 candidates in 2013 and 2 candidates in 2012. The pass rate for the

examination this year was 65%. This compares with a pass rate in 2013 of 82%.

The average mark for all candidates was 57%. This compares with an average mark of 56% in 2013.


A: 0%

B: 9%

C: 14%

D: 41%

Fail: 34%

Unit 2.1: Quality

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand how hygiene and cleaning are used and applied in the packaging

process and on your packaging line.

On a returnable pack filling and sealing process of your choice identify the key hygiene and cleaning procedures that are

relevant to prevent microbiological contamination of the packaged product. Your discussion should include elaboration on:

Design of plant for maximum hygiene and ease of cleaning (5)

Approach to product, pack and raw material hygiene and sterilisation (5)

Conditions and procedures to inhibit microbiological growth in this process (5)

How microbiological quality is monitored and managed in this process (5)

47

Deeper problem solving and corrective action procedures applied [with supporting examples] on a specific problem area (5)

You are encouraged to provide and include diagrams, performance indicators and trends/charts, as well as methods, analysis,

timing and frequencies and reasoning for the incorporation of these in the procedures used.

23 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of 15, with the range of scores from 10 to 22.5.

Candidates that submitted good assignments covered the subject matter comprehensively, with relative supporting detail and

commentary, and, well quantified problem solving and corrective action examples and recommendations in Part E of the

assignment.

Candidates with satisfactory scores generally scored lower in the aspects of quantifying and substantiating the points made. The

problem solving processes covered [in Part E] were not as comprehensive in comparison to the “good” submissions.

The weak and poor submissions were less well structured, with little in-depth substantiation and substance to points tabled. The

majority of responses were ‘single liner’ comments with little quantification or substantiation – some responses omitted to cover

Part E of the assignment.


23 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 22, with the scores ranging from 11 to 29 out of 40 marks.

The candidate’s breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter is tested in this section of the examination paper. Weaker

areas/responses were prevalent in questions on purpose and methodology used in determining average package volume content,

laboratory analysis/tests, material safety data sheets contents for packaging cleaning materials, and, methods of control of

microbiological contamination in the filling process in packaging.


1. Modern quality systems require control of documentation and review.

a. Provide FIVE examples of controlled documents, for a pack line/ operation and briefly explain their respective

purpose and use. [10]

b. Using the examples discussed, provide a brief explanation of how document control, format and

amendments/changes are achieved. [10]

c. Briefly outline and explain how quality systems performance is monitored on a regular basis on your pack line

through auditing, corrective action, and improvement. Provide actual examples. [15]


The majority of the responses to this question achieved good scores with only 4 candidates scoring less than 50%.

Candidates were expected to provide, discuss and explain examples of selected documents used in their packaging operation and

how these are used, managed and administered, and also how quality systems performance is monitored and assured, with

elaboration on specific examples provided by the candidate.

2. ISO standards 9001: 2008 sets out the criteria for a Quality Management System, and is based on a set of eight quality

management principles:

a. List these EIGHT principles. [8]

b. Briefly explain how these are applied and used in packaging. (Provide actual examples by principle) [24]

c. Explain the purpose of ISO 9000 [3]

7 Candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 4 and 31, with an average score of 19.5.

48

There were two poor scores where both candidates misinterpreted the question and provided incorrect responses. Candidates

were expected to cover the eight quality management principles and demonstrate their understanding of application and key

deliverables in packaging.

Gavin Duffy

Unit 2.2: Operations Management

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand how packaging performance is measured.

For a packaging line of your choice, explain the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which are used to measure performance. You

should include KPIs for both non-financial and financial performance and provide actual current figures for each KPI. [10]

Critically assess and discuss the effectiveness of each KPI as a management tool. Make recommendations for modifying, adding

to or using these KPIs in ways which you believe will lead to improved packaging performance. [15]

23 candidates tendered submissions for this assignment, achieving an average score of 17, with the range of scores from 13 to 23.

The marks confirm that the overall standard for this assignment was very good. The candidate scoring 23 produced a near model

submission.

The better candidates had a sound structure throughout with helpful use of illustrative images, charts, graphs and tables. Most

provided a good explanation of a comprehensive range (up to 17) of both non-financial and financial KPIs used to measure

performance. Weaker candidates provide only a small number of mainly non-financial KPIs. In the financial group, the examiner

was particularly keen to see examples such as packaging cost / hl and maintenance cost / hl as well as losses. Current performance

was shown in a variety of ways with a number of excellent scoreboards and dashboards together with good explanations of the

use of traffic light systems for immediate understanding of issues.

The critical assessment of the effectiveness of each KPI was not always as rigorous as the examiner would have wished and, as a

consequence, the recommendations were often weak. The best candidates carried out thorough assessments yielding strong,

well-judged specific recommendations for improvements. Many candidates pleasingly recognized the merit in evaluating the most

important KPIs on a shift or, as appropriate, daily basis to then be able to react quickly to affect change. Going further, a small

number of candidates emphasized the potential to manage (or start managing) packaging performance in real time.


23 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 22, with the scores ranging from 11 to a very good 32.

In general the questions on line operations and world class manufacturing were answered better than those on finance and

purchasing.

Having submitted assignments on performance measures, the examiner was disappointed that for Q1 not all candidates

understood that such measures should be straightforward to collect, easy to report, easy to understand and as few as is necessary

to improve performance.

The majority of candidates were unclear on controllable and non-controllable fixed costs (Q11 and Q12) and that the principal

purpose of producing year-to-date figures (Q13) is to allow a year end position to be forecast and hence allow time for

management action to secure the planned position or minimize any negative impact.

Surprisingly, not all candidates were able to define purchasing (Q16) – “acquiring something by paying money for it”. There was

reasonably good understanding of partnering (Q17) and reasons for issuing invitations to tender (Q18).

49


1. List the various stages of a major capital project from identification of need to successful completion. [18]

Identify the main personnel directly involved and describe their roles and responsibilities. [17]

11 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between a very poor 6 and a good 27, with an average score of

17.

The first part of the question specifically asked for a list and as a potential 18 marks were to be awarded this immediately suggests

a long list. The examiner was ideally seeking the twenty stages fully detailed in the Revision Notes and a small number of

candidates achieved this. Those candidates who chose to list the eight broad phases from the Notes limited themselves to a

maximum of 8 marks – this was not sufficient to satisfy the examiner. Too many candidates unnecessarily provided explanations

for each stage and thereby severely limited the time available to answer the second part of the question.

For the second part of the question, the examiner was expecting the following main personnel (or personnel from these key

functions) to have been identified: end user, engineering, finance, project manager, procurement and vendor. There were well

argued perfectly acceptable variations on this group but several candidates missed out important functions such as (variously)

project management, finance and procurement – bearing in mind that it a major capital project that is under consideration.

The descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of these personnel (fully covered in the Revision Notes) were reasonably well

handled. Poorer answers failed to describe sufficient involvement of the end user at key stages and, surprisingly, finance from the

post completion review process. The better answers described the roles of particularly the end user and project manager

throughout the whole project lifecycle with the other main players appearing and often reappearing at specific key stages.

2. Explain the principles of “lean” manufacturing. [20]

Propose a strategy for the “lean” journey. [15]

12 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between a poor 6 and a very good 29, with an average score of

only 13. As can be seen from the average score the overall standard was barely satisfactory.

For the first part, the best answers began with a brief definition of lean such as “a production practice that considers the

expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer to be wasteful and thus a target for

elimination”. In this context value may be defined as “any action or process that the customer will pay for”.

Candidates chose to explain the principles of lean manufacturing using one of two equally acceptable alternative approaches. For

many lean is the set of tools that assist in the identification and steady elimination of waste. As waste is eliminated quality

improves while production time and cost are reduced. Examples of such tools are Value Stream Mapping, 5S, Kanban (pull

systems) and poke-yoke (error proofing).

The second approach is the Toyota Production System (TPS) where the focus is on improving the flow or smoothness of work,

thereby eliminating mura (unevenness) through the system.

As both approaches feature the elimination of waste, the examiner expected the 7 wastes under the acronym TIMWOOD to

feature in a good answer. The overall principles could have included: pull processing, perfect first-time quality, waste

minimization, continuous improvement, flexibility, building and maintaining a long term relationship with suppliers,

autonomation, load leveling / production flow and visual control.

For the second part of the question on proposing a strategy for the lean journey, the better candidates chose one of three options:

• a tools-based approach

• a flow-based approach

• a variation this flow-based approach using a simple 5 step process:

50

1. Identify value

2. Map the value stream

3. Create flow

4. Establish pull

5. Seek perfection

The best answers developed each of these 5 steps concisely with practical examples of how the thought processes are translated

into practical action.

The principal reason that the average score was low for this question was that too many candidates proposed a generalized

mixture of cultural change / performance improvement techniques for both parts rather than specifically describing true lean

principles and strategies.

Robin Cooper

Unit 2.3: Large Pack Operations Keg

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the process of preparing kegs prior to filling. The assignment will

focus on keg washing, sterilisation, inspection and the integrity of the keg. (For candidates with no keg line in their brewery,

the assignment must be based on a keg line in another brewery.)

For a keg line of your choice, explain the theory and practice of keg preparation prior to filling. This should include details of

external and internal keg washing and sterilisation, keg inspection and any keg checks carried out to ensure the keg is fit for

purpose.

The submission must show the detail of actual cycle times and plant settings, and should describe the operation of equipment

used to prepare the kegs. [15]

Assess and discuss how standards in keg preparation may impact on the quality of the beer. Use a real example of when

appropriate standards were not applied to demonstrate how beer quality was affected and what standards were put in place to

ensure future beer quality was maintained. [10]

23 candidates submitted this assignment with a range of scores from 24% to 80% and an average of 56%.

8 candidates did not pass this assignment as their submission lacked the basics of a good assignment report. There was little or no

structure to the report and some of the basic processes of keg preparation were not well described. Some candidates Did not fully

demonstrate that they had spent any significant time on the keg line ( or keg filler) or had read the theory of keg preparation.

The assignment required actual cycle times and plant settings and the better submissions not only listed these but also described

why these settings were important and the impact on kg preparation if the standards were not adhered to. The second part of the

question was only answered well by a few candidates and they gave a good account of when a quality problem had arisen due to

poor cleaning or sterilisation and the actions that had been taken by the brewery to prevent a re-occurrence. Unfortunately most

of the candidates either failed to answer this part of the assignment or only made fleeting reference to it.


This unit had the weakest candidate scoring 19 marks and the best scoring 36 marks out of 40. The average score was 28 marks

which shows that in general the paper was very well answered with only 1 candidate failing the paper. There were no particular

trends of questions which were not well answered and most candidates demonstrated a good range of knowledge on large pack

operations.

51


1. List the key design and operational features of keg dispense equipment from keg spears (extractors) to dispense taps and

how each type of equipment may impact on dispense yield. [10]

Describe how the quality of dispense may be affected by each of the following key parameters.

• Hygiene

• Gas pressure

• Temperature [25]

Only 3 candidates answered question 1 with an average score of 16 marks out of 35 marks and only 1 candidate passed the

question.

The answer required a detailed description of all the equipment used in beer dispense (eg different types of extractors, beer taps,

beer pumps) and how the design and even more importantly the way they are used will affect the yield of beer dispensed ie how

inefficient use can lead to beer loss through fobbing, wasted beer or not being able to extract all the beer from the keg. One

candidate did not even answer the first part of the question.

Candidates answered the second part of the question better with explanations of how hygiene ,gas pressure and temperature can

affect microbiological stability, taste, clarity, fobbing, gushing and poor head dispense of beer.

2. Draw a flow diagram of the operation of either a lane or rotary filling machine showing each stage of the process from

empty keg infeed to full keg discharge. [10]

Describe what happens at each stage of the process identified in the flow diagram above, including all relevant process

parameters. [25]

20 candidates answered question 2 with an average score of 14 marks out of 35 marks. The range was 5 marks to 29 marks with

only 5 out of the 24 candidates passing the question.

The question was very badly answered. The question asked for the candidate to draw a flow diagram of the operation of either a

lane or rotary filling machine showing each stage of the process from empty keg infeed to full keg discharge and describe what

happens at each stage of the process. Most candidates drew a diagram of the whole keg line and described the function of the

different machines on the line. They therefore missed the point of describing the filling process and therefore could not answer

what happens at each stage of the filling process.

Angus Steven

Unit 2.4: Large Pack Operations Cask

Assignment

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the process of preparing casks prior to filling. The assignment will

focus on cask washing, sterilisation, inspection and the integrity of the cask.

For a cask line of your choice, explain the theory and practice of cask preparation prior to filling. This should include details of

external and internal cask washing and sterilisation, cask inspection and any cask checks carried out to ensure the cask is fit for

purpose.

The submission must show details of actual cycle times and plant settings, and should describe the operation of equipment used

to prepare casks. [15]

Assess and discuss how standards in cask preparation may impact on the quality of the beer. Use a real example of when

appropriate standards were not applied to demonstrate how beer quality was affected and what standards were put in place to

ensure future beer quality was maintained. [10]

52


1. List the key design and operational features of cask dispense and dispense equipment from cask delivery to the cellar to

dispense at the bar and how each piece of equipment may impact on dispense yield. [10]

Describe how the quality of dispense may be affected by each of the following key parameters.

• Hygiene

• Dissolved gas control

• Temperature [25]

2. Using diagrams show each stage of the cask cleaning and filling process and list the process parameters associated with each

stage. Describe how each parameter affects the filling process and the quality of the beer in the cask. [25]

Unit 2.5: Brewing

Assignment

This assignment is designed for you to demonstrate your knowledge of your brewery’s fermentation vessels and how your

fermentations are controlled. (If your site does not have an operational fermentation system you will need to organise

attendance at an appropriate location.)

With the aid of clearly labeled diagrams and/or photographs explain the main features of a fermenting vessel in your brewery

and describe how a fermentation is controlled. Your submission should identify all unit operations from start of vessel filling to

final vessel emptying/cleaning, and should refer to a typical time based fermentation profile. [10]

Using examples from your brewery, describe 7 key parameters that need to be monitored and controlled to achieve high

quality consistent fermentations. Provide typical analytical, microbiological and process values required for each parameter to

validate effective process management. [7]

Provide two recommendations to improve fermentation performance at your Brewery. Justify each with an indicative cost /

benefit analysis. [8]


The first part on vessel design needed to cover 1) Shape and dimensions and capacity 2) Materials of construction 3) Yeast

addition/removal 4) Temperature control 5) Control of CO2 evolution and pressure 6) Control of filling/emptying 7) FV cleaning.

In terms of vessel capacity no candidate identified the need for freeboard space above the liquid wort to accommodate the yeast

head. Materials of construction of the vessel shell were adequately covered but no candidate gave details of insulation and

cladding. With one notable exception detail on cooling control was lacking (interaction between temperature probes and cooling

mechanism). With one notable exception detail of the cleaning mechanism was lacking and no candidate offered a cleaning

regime (detergent strength and temperature and time of application).

The second part asked for 7 parameters to be monitored/controlled to achieve successful fermentations and was generally well

answered to include pitching rate, yeast health, oxygen, temperature, pressure, specific gravity, VDK, microbiological

contamination. Better marks were awarded for indicated quantified values for these parameters as requested in the question.

The third part asked for two recommendations to improve brewery fermentation performance. All suggestions were valid, but

with one notable exception no indicative cost/benefit analysis was offered and in some cases no consideration was given to the

potential impact on finished beer.

53



No candidate identified a barley variety suitable for malting and few understood that a kilned pale malt can be further roasted to

create speciality malts such as chocolate malt

Only one candidate identified that the two forms of starch that undergo enzymic conversion at mashing are amylose and

amylopectin

Of the factors influencing enzymic conversion at mashing there was good understanding of temperature and pH but no mention of

the role of calcium.

Less than half of the candidates identified maltose as the predominant sugar in an all malt wort.

There was lack of understanding on mash temperature – the need to gelatinize the starch and its impact on wort fermentability.

No candidate identified a high alpha acid hop variety and an indicative alpha acid content

There was little understanding that some of the protein/nitrogen content of wort must be in the form of amino acids (Free Amino

Nitrogen) for yeast to be able to metabolise and grow.

For critical parameters during maturation all identified Temperature/Time but no candidate identified low dissolved oxygen.


1. Describe the FIVE main characteristics of a brewery water supply. For each characteristic provide a quality requirement and

outline an appropriate water treatment where that quality requirement is not met by the incoming water supply [23]

Compare and contrast the requirements for product water used for mashing with those requirements for product water used for

diluting high gravity beer at filtration [12]

2 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 18 and 22, with an average score of 20. Part 1a was

generally well covered but better marks would have been obtained for more detail about the water treatments referred to e.g. a

simple process flow diagram. Part 2a was not well answered. Comparisons would have included temperature, dissolved oxygen,

Calcium, flavour salts, pH, microbiology

2. Identify and explain the physical and chemical changes occurring during wort boiling and how these impact on final beer. [35]


These papers demonstrated limited knowledge of processes occurring during wort boiling and offered very little discussion as to

the impact on final beer quality. Descriptions of boiling technology were not asked for (unless its impact on the boiling process

could be shown to be relevant). Little mention was made on protein denaturation and aggregation, processes needed to form

trub, and how this impacted on beer filterability, colloidal stability and foam stability. Volatile stripping mentioned DMS removal

(but not hop oils, aldehydes, and grainy character) but no detail was provided of the mechanism of DMS formation and therefore

how the level in final beer can be controlled. The flavor and colour development produced by the Maillard reactions were poorly

covered. No mention was made of pH drop ( calcium phosphate formation) and the importance of this for trub formation and

fermentation VDK reduction time. The elimination of oxalic acid as calcium oxalate to avoid beerstone in cellar vessels and

haze/gushing in final beer was not covered.

Zane Barnes

54

Unit 2.6: Carbonated Soft Drinks

Assignment

Light-weighting of primary and secondary packaging, recipe modifications and R&D/Marketing-led developments have yielded

significant cost savings in the last 20 years in the soft drinks industry and other similar areas of food and drinks manufacturing.

You are asked to research and report on areas of packaging and product innovation in your own company where cost benefits

have been realised, giving details of the challenges faced and the issues caused by change to the nature of the product and

packaging. For example, what effect has this had in the areas of:

• manufacturing line efficiencies

• material yields

• quality, safety and environmental standards

• operational procedures? [5]

List and identify three areas of packaging material or ingredient savings that may be recommended in order to further reduce

manufacturing costs, and expand on this by outlining both the advantages and the risks of continued development. [3x5]

You are encouraged to provide and include diagrams, performance indicators and trends/charts, as well as financial

information such as real and projected cost savings (which will be treated in confidence). [5]


Candidates that submitted good or satisfactory assignments gave specific examples of product/packaging improvements which

have led to cost savings, specific examples of effect on efficiency/yield savings, and also change to standards/procedures. In order

to gain marks, it was expected that they would provide references to examples and improvements.

They were also asked to provid three specific examples of improvement, with evidence that they are recommended by the

candidate, and an idea/evidence of the level of savings that each generate. Detail of advantages and risks of continued

development with suggested action planning evidence.

A total of 5 marks were allotted for including evidence of KPIs, photographs, trending information and cost projections, each with

specific references in the submission. Overall, assignments were judged for structure, desciption of projects, drawings/data and

relevent photos, recommendations and summary.

Weak or poor submissions by candidates, whilst structured and descriptive were very light in the area of summary and

recommendations with little in the way of providing supporting data or similar evidence. It was also evident from the submitted

assignments that there was a general lack of claiming direct involvement or ownership in improvement projects.



The range of marks was quite wide in this year’s short answer questions section. One of the most surprising areas of poor scoring

was in the knowledge of brix definition and brix measurement, as well as basic carbonation testing. These are two fundamental

elements of the filling of carbonated soft drinks and should be common knowledge to manufacturing operatives and technicians.

Other question areas which were poorly answered included warehouse storage types and functional drinks.

In contrast to the above, candidates scored well on questions about CO2, chlorine removal from water, primary packaging facts

and spoilage effects on soft drinks.

Overall, only 7 questions out of a possible 300 were unanswered by candidates, three by one candidate alone.

55


1. Consider the most effective layout design for two ‘paired’ PET bottling lines in a single bottling hall. With the aid of a process

flow diagram, explain the layout, labelling the key items of equipment and include nominal speeds for the main equipment as

well as indicating the staffing requirement for the lines. [20]

List and describe how appropriate routine maintenance checks can be safely conducted for production of soft drinks on these

lines, highlighting frequency and who would be involved in carrying out the checks. Also briefly describe how these maintenance

activities may be conducted in the most cost-effective way, taking into account aspects of both quality and plant utilisation. [15]


The first part of the question was asking the candidate to look at the most effective plant layout whilst looking for innovative

design eg two lines/1 team of multi-skilled operators. Responses were not to the level expected, due possibly to misinterpretation

of the question. Instead, the layout diagrams were fairly standard and omitted to display any innovative approach to staffing

requirement or key machine positioning.

Part two was looking for consideration of maintenance being carried out during production runs, during product changes/CIPs as

well as maximisation of planned downtime (ie opportunities when no production is required). Also the aspect of innovative use of

skilled labour & minimal use of other staff from outside the team was being examined – surprisingly though, people skills hardly

featured in the answers, more the actual processes.

The responses were generally quite good in explaining types of maintenance used and opportunities to carry out these duties.

There appeared to be a general consensus about each type of maintenance opportunity and how it could be implemented.

2. Draw and label flow diagrams for two different processes for the treatment of incoming water supply for soft drinks

manufacturing. [20]

List the key differences between the two processes, and explain any advantages or disadvantages that one process may have

over the other. [15]


Part one of this question was generally well answered and was looking for any two of the following processes: chemical

coagulation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, UV light, ozonation, micropore or nano-filtration. Apart from one extremely poor

effort, most candidates produced reasonably good diagrammatical answers, one or two being very close to the expected standard.

Diagrammatical layout, labelling of each stage and annotation to explain the role of each part of the process was expected to be

shown, and a number of candidates did demonstrate this.

Answers to part two of the question showed greater variation – key differences were generally covered quite well but not so much

the advantages/disadvantages of pne process over the other.

One particular candidate gave a more or less perfect tabular list of the differences between the two chosen processes. Another

candidate failed to answer part two, possibly due to running out of allotted examination time.

It was interesting to note that about 75% of the candidates that took the examination chose to answer this second question,

which is of more technical nature, over Question 1 about line layout and maintenance.

Dick Charlton

56

Module 3

The examination was sat by 28 candidates, compared with 1 candidate in 2013 and 9 candidates in 2012. The pass rate for the

examination this year was 92%. The average mark for all candidates was 62%.


A: 0%

B: 18%

C: 39%

D: 25%

Fail: 18%

Unit 3.1: Resource Management

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show that you understand the principles of energy and water conservation.

For a packaging line of your choice, explain the measures already in place (inherent in the original design or subsequent

modification) to conserve energy and water. You should include quantitative data to illustrate the effectiveness of these

measures. [10]

Assess the potential for further savings in both energy and water for this line. Make one new recommendation for improvement

in energy consumption and one new recommendation for improvement in water consumption and explain how you would

justify any capital or revenue expenditure. [15]

29 candidates tendered submissions for this assignment, achieving an average score of 16, with the range of scores from 9 to 20.

The better submissions had a good structure throughout with helpful supporting diagrams, tables and graphs. One submission

made use of annotated photographs to great effect. Several candidates made clever use of appendices to convey additional

information without wordcount penalty.

For the first part of the assignment existing energy and water conservation measures were well explained but for many should

have extended to CIP, manual cleaning regimes, conveyor controls and the building and working environment – several good

submissions described the upgrade of lighting and the use of occupancy sensors.

In addition to plant and process features the examiner expected the extent of monitoring and targeting to have been covered in

the quest for continuous improvement.

For the second part of the assignment potential areas for further savings too often featured long lists of findings not supported by

any cost-benefit analysis. In contrast the two recommendations were generally well targeted and effectively presented with

excellent financial justification calculations. Many candidates recognised and included the benefits of operator awareness training,

leak detection etc whilst just a few candidates made proposals to manage energy and water in real time (with up to date M & T

and SCADA systems) with the huge benefits that can then be realised.


26 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 24, with the scores ranging from a poor 9 to a very good 30.

In general all four sections of the syllabus (Environment, Health and Safety, Utilities and Maintenance) were answered

satisfactorily. Surprisingly, a number of candidates made no attempt to answer some short answer questions and where these

questions have 4 or 5 marks allocated, the candidate automatically limits his or her potential score.

For Q11 (key steps in investigating an accident) the very best candidates included in their steps the importance of timeliness (as

quickly as practicable after the accident) and visiting the scene of the accident – not simply carrying out a desk-top exercise.

57

Q18 (key requirements for effective planned maintenance work) saw many candidates making reference to “availability of

resources” as one of their key requirements. In itself this is insufficient and the examiner fully expected this to be developed into

spares and other engineering materials plus manpower (with the appropriate skills, tools and equipment). Several candidates

failed to recognize that, in the vast majority of cases, the plant should be shut down for planned maintenance and that technicians

need access to plant specific technical information, plant history and maintenance standards.


1. List the principal causes of injury in the alcoholic and soft drinks industries with examples to illustrate each. [15]

Explain how and why the Deming cycle is being increasingly promoted for managing health and safety. [20]

22 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between a poor 9 and a very good 27, with an average score of

18.

The first part of the question asked for a list – too many candidates quite unnecessarily provided a detailed description of each

cause of injury, for several candidates clearly reducing the amount of time available for the second part of the question which

commanded more marks.

The majority of candidates correctly identified the principal causes as: manual handling and lifting, slips and trips, being struck by

falling objects, falls from height, machinery, exposure to harmful substances and transport. There were for the most part very

good examples for illustration.

A number of candidates specifically cited causes of injury from their own packaging operation rather than the alcoholic and soft

drinks industries in general – it is always important to answer the exact question set.

The second part of the question saw more variable answers with the poorer efforts simplistically reproducing the basic Deming

cycle with no effective explanation of its application for health and safety. The best answers explained that Deming (plan, do

check, act) is simpler than the historic POPMAR (policy, organizing, planning, measuring performance, auditing and review). The

examiner was expecting the Deming stages to be fully developed along the lines: Plan (core elements for managing health and

safety including planning, strategy, policy); Do (deliver effective arrangements including management systems, dealing with risks);

check (the measuring of performance, auditing of systems, investigating accidents; act (lessons learned, are you doing what you

need to do?).

2. Explain, with the aid of diagrams if considered beneficial, the “risk based” approach to plant maintenance. [25]

What can be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? [10]

Disappointingly just 4 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 18 and a truly excellent 30, with an

average score of 22.

For the first part of the question all the candidates chose to use a diagram or diagrams to assist with their explanations of the risk

based approach to plant maintenance. One of the moderate efforts was too general and explained an overall approach to risk

assessment not tailored specifically to plant maintenance. Better answers explained that in most cases equipment can be kept on

line and that the probability of failure can be assessed together with the consequence of failure. The inspection regime, including

the gathering of data, is vitally important together with the skills and knowledge to carry out the assessments and undertake the

maintenance itself.

The most popular approach was to explain an in-service continuous circle of inspection and maintenance. This can be shown as

seven stages: data collection and analysis; identification of deterioration mechanisms; risk analysis; risk control actions;

development of inspection plans; execution of inspection; repairs and modifications. These activities require design expertise,

materials / NDT knowledge, operational knowledge, maintenance expertise and inspection technology.

58

Answers to the second part of the question suggested that the advantages of the risk based approach strongly outnumber,

probably correctly, the disadvantages. Advantages could have included: the acquisition of distinctive knowledge of plant behavior;

the compilation of case histories; the elimination of excessiveness and inadequacy; inspections assess real risk rather than simply

“check OK”; reduction in cost; the minimization of surprises and related costs; the maximization of production time with less

downtime and more “live” inspection. The risk based approach can also be applied to spares stockholding.

The main disadvantage often quoted is that the necessary highly competent personnel can be very expensive especially if sourced

from outside the organization. World Class operations would aim to develop the competence within the teams wherever possible.

Robin Cooper

Unit 3.2: Fluid Mechanics

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show your understanding of fluid flow in pipes and your ability to calculate flow velocities and

flow rates.

Using a beer transfer piping arrangement of your choice, estimate the desired linear flow velocities (or range of velocities) in

the pipe during beer transfer and CIP regimes. Justify your estimates. [7]

Perform the necessary calculations to convert the linear velocities into volumetric flow rates. [8]

During both beer transfer and CIP operations measure the fluids’ linear velocities or volumetric flow rates using equipment

available to you in your facility. Describe how you accomplished this task. Compare the data obtained from these

measurements to the estimates identified above and make recommendations as appropriate or justify the results you

obtained. [10]

Twenty-four candidates attempted this section and 22 passed with an average passing score of 75% correct.

The examiner was looking for the candidate to explore flow regimes (calculated vs measured) in the packaging area. The first part

required a brief discussion of laminar and turbulent flow regime for beer transfers and CIP, respectively. Use of a Reynolds number

calculation given the particular pipe dimensions was the ideal answer. Rule of thumb of <1m/s for laminar and >2m/s for turbulent

was okay, too. Second part was straightforward calculation converting linear velocity to volumetric flowrate. In the third part the

examiner was looking to see that the candidate had gone to the packaging floor and accessed flowmeter data for different flow

regimes – filling, beer transfer, CIP, etc. Or, the candidate could use external flow meter (ultrasonic or transit time) to measure

flowrate himself/herself. The candidate should have either justified flow rates in relation to actual operation or made

recommendation(s) to change flow. The exercise was essentially a process validation.



This section of the exam is meant to examine the breadth of the syllabus. Nearly all candidates demonstrated sound knowledge of

fluid viscosity, state of flow and Reynolds number concepts. Similarly, calculations involving mechanical energy balance were

handled well. However, calculations involving Henry’s law were not well carried out. Candidates were less prepared to answer

questions about gas purity, CO2 liquefaction and clean up, and nitrogen gas generation/preparation.


1. Describe how pump cavitation occurs and discuss how this condition can be avoided. [13]

Define the term supersaturation and explain how gas supersaturation occurs in beer. [10]

59

Discuss the challenges of pumping carbonated beer through a pipework and unit operations in the packaging plant such as a

flash pasteurizer or a valve matrix. [12]

Seventeen candidates chose this question and eight passed with an average score of 69%. The nine that did not perform well were

not close to passing, averaging only 29%. The concept of gas solubility was not well understood for more than half the candidates

The first part of this question asked the candidate to explain cavitation and how to avoid it. Pump cavitation occurs when the

suction-side head pressure falls below the vapor pressure of the fluid being pumped. Recondensation of the vapor releases a lot of

energy in the form of noise and vibration. Vapor pressure is a function of the fluid composition and most importantly its

temperature. Thus pumping higher temperature fluids will increase the potential of cavitation because of the higher vapor

pressure. I can be avoided by increasing the suction side head pressure via increasing the suction side static head and reducing

suction-side frictional losses (short, large pipe ID on the inlet with minimal fittings)

The second part of the question was about gas supersaturation and not methods of carbonation. Some candidates were eager to

discuss carbonation techniques and consequently scored little to no points on this part of the question. Supersaturation is a state

where the liquid side concentration of a dissolved gas is in excess of the equilibrium conditions for the given temperature and

pressure of the fluid. This occurs when the system pressure falls below the equilibrium pressure for the gas solubility (i.e. Henry’s

law PA = H xA.) or when the system temperature exceeds the equilibrium temperature at a given pressure. In either case, a drop in

pressure or increase in temperature, can result in gas break out.

Pumping carbonated beer presents the possibility of having gas breakout. Whenever the line pressure drops below the equilibrium

conditions for the fluid/gas solution in question there is the opportunity for gas to break out. There is tremendous opportunity for

this to happen while flash pasteurizing carbonated beer because of the very high temperatures and hence the very high

equilibrium pressures. A booster pump and/also a back-pressure valve is required in order to keep line pressure in excess of this

high equilibrium pressure. The problem is not as troublesome in a valve matrix because there is not the high temperatures

involved, however, there can be considerable frictional pressure drop (often locally at the valve body) and this pressure drop can

result in gas breakout. Sufficiently high line pressure will prevent this from occurring.

2. Discuss what factors affect the equilibrium concentrations of a mixture of gases in a liquid solution and how they can be

manipulated to achieve a desired concentration, such as carbonation and nitrogenation levels in a beer that is carbonated with

a N2:CO2, gas blend. [10]

Estimate the total mass of gas in the headspace of a 500 hl tank that is filled with 400 hl of bright beer. The headspace above

the bright beer contains 100 hl of a gas mixture comprised of N2 (80%) and CO2 (20%) at 2°C (275 K). The concentration of gases

in the headspace is in equilibrium with the beer and the pressure of the headspace is 200 kPa. Calculate the partial pressure and

mass of both gases in the headspace and use these figures to calculate the total mass of gas in the headspace. [15]

The universal gas constant: R = 8.314 m3 kPa kmol-1 K-1

Gas molecular weights: CO2 = 44, N2 = 28.

Specific gas constants:

RCO2 = 0.189 m3 kPa kg-1 K-1, RN2 = 0.297 m3 kPa kg-1 K-1

Explain what would happen to the dissolved gas concentration in the beer for both carbon dioxide and nitrogen if the tank

pressure was increased by the addition of 100% nitrogen to achieve a new headspace total pressure of 300 kPa. Draw upon your

understanding of Dalton’s law and the physics of gas-liquid equilibria to justify your answer. [10]

Seven candidates chose this question and four passed with an average score of 61%

There are two main factors that affect gas concentration in a liquid: pressure and temperature. A third factor is the type of gas and

hence its solubility. For instance, nitrogen is far less soluble than carbon dioxide in water and beer. Lower temperatures results in

greater gas solubility in a liquid solution, thus both pressure and temperature must be controlled to achieve a desired

60

concentration. Furthermore, the concentration in the gas phase (expressed as partial pressure of gas) will influence the

concentration in the liquid phase – this is Henry’s law: PA = H xA.

The second part is a pV=nRT or pV=mRgT problem. For 80:20 blend of gas at 200 kPa, pN2 = 160 kPa and pCO2 = 40 kPa. This

partial pressure in the 10 m3 of headspace yields a specific mass of gas. In the headspace the mass of nitrogen = 19.6 kg while

mass of carbon dioxide = 7.7 kg for a total of 27.3 kg. Some candidates made the mistake of using the partial pressure in addition

to the partial volume in this calculation and achieved the wrong answer, however only minor marks were removed for this

mistake.

The third part relies on candidates understanding of Dalton’s law of partial pressures. As more nitrogen is pumped into the

headspace the partial pressure of nitrogen rises (and hence the concentration of dissolved nitrogen in the beer also rises) while

the partial pressure of carbon dioxide stays the same and therefore the dissolved CO2 stays the same.

Thomas Shellhammer

Unit 3.3: Thermal Energy Transfer

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show your understanding of the operation and control of a plate heat exchanger in a packaging

environment.

Examine a flash pasteurizer, beer chiller or other plate heat exchanger in your facility and explain its operation using diagrams

and photographs. [10]

Describe how temperature of the product stream is controlled. [7]

What issues may arise that affect the heat exchanger’s operation. How can they be remedied? [8]


The examiner was looking for the candidate to go into the plant, study a heat exchanger and provide detailed discussion of its

operation. Many submissions provided a nice compliment of diagrams and actual (and often annotated) photographs of the heat

exchanger in question. Most satisfactorily dealt with all three parts of the assignment – explanation of operation, temperature

control, and issues. The candidates are reminded that the assignment word count target is 1250-1500 words and those that

submit 3000+ words do not do themselves a service by going “over the top” with length. The goal is to be complete but concise

and pay attention to the question being asked by the examiner.



This section of the exam is meant to examine the breadth of the syllabus. Nearly all candidates demonstrated sound knowledge of

basic thermodynamic concepts such as sensible vs. latent heat, specific heats of conductors and insulators, and conductive vs.

convective heat transfer. They could identify components of a steam system and basic boiler operation/maintenance practice.

Using a steam table for basic calculations was not difficult for the bulk of the cohort. Candidates stumbled when asked to draw

temperature profiles within multilayer materials, and density vs. temperature relationships. Steam quality estimates (heating

value of wet steam) presented a challenge for more than half of the candidates.


1. Define convective and conductive heat transfer. [8]

Discuss how insulation carries out its function by slowing both convective and conductive heat transfer within the insulating

material. [10]

61

Describe the composition and internal structure of insulating material for chilled, stainless steel vessels and explain why this

type of structure is selected. [10]

A stainless steel storage vessel is to be insulated with a material having a thermal conductivity 0.05 W•m-1•K-1. Calculate the

thickness of insulation (expressed in cm) that will reduce the heat absorption by the vessel from its surroundings to 25 W•m-2,

given the following information:

Temperature at the vessel wall-insulation interface is 0°C

Temperature of the external insulation surface is 15°C

Tank insulation thermal conductivity 0.05 W•m-1•K-1

Target heat flux is 25 W•m-2

Ignore the conductive resistance of the stainless steel tank wall. [7]

Six candidates chose this question and five passed with an average score of 68%.

This first part asked candidates to define convective vs. conductive heat transfer, which was not difficult for those who understand

the difference. Convective heat transfer requires the movement of a fluid thereby carrying heat to or away from a surface.

Conductive heat transfer relies on the movement of heat along/within a solid material.

The second part asked about insulation structure/function. Insulation functions by trapping air, which has an inherently very low

thermal conductivity. Albeit we generally think of air as a convective material but for the sake of discussing insulation, the tiny

pockets of air that are trapped within the insulation material do very little convecting and can be viewed as low thermal

conductivity conductors. The other aspect of insulation is the solid structure (plastic or glass wool) and both of these have low

thermal conductivity.

For chilled vessels it is very important to have a closed cell foam or to have sealed cladding to prevent moisture pick up. Since the

temperature of the exterior of the vessel will often be below the dew point of the surrounding air, moisture will condense on the

surface if it is allowed to. If the insulation is material is open cell, it will fill with water. Water has a much higher thermal

conductivity than air and thus the insulation properties will decrease dramatically should it fill with water. The other thing to

consider with the insulation is the potential corrosiveness of it. Stainless steel is susceptible to attack by Cl-, so a low chlorine

polymer structure is desired.

The final part asked candidates to calculate insulation thickness required to reduce the heat flux to a specified rate. With the

information provided in the question set-up this was a simple rearrangement of Fouier’s Law…the answer was 3 cm.

2. Draw a diagram of a closed-loop vapour-compression refrigeration system and describe the purpose of each of the four major

components. Identify which thermodynamic property of the refrigerant remains constant as it moves through each of the four

components. [15]

Draw a detailed pressure-enthalpy diagram for a refrigerant such as ammonia and map out the path the refrigerant takes as it

moves through the four major refrigeration components described earlier. [10]

How is the coefficient of performance (COP) of a refrigeration system measured and what does it describe? How can it be

increased? [10]

This was a popular question with seventeen candidates attempting and 14 passing. The average passing score was 81% and

included one perfect score.

The first part required a straight-forward explanation of the four key components in a mechanical refrigeration system, assembled

in the proper order. Some candidate failed to correct explain the thermodynamic property of the refrigerant that is constant in

each component.

62

Compressor – isentropic compression of the refrigerant – fixed entropy

Condenser – isobaric condensation of refrigerant – fixed temperature and pressure

Expansion valve – isenthalpic expansion of refrigerant – fixed enthalpy

Evaporator – isobaric evaporation of refrigerant – fixed temperature and pressure

If the first part was laid out properly the second part should have been easy – drawing a clearly labeled P-H diagram showing path

of refrigerant. Better answers included lines of constant entropy and temperature.

The COP is measured as the change in enthalpy in the evaporator relative to the change in enthalpy at the compressor. In other

words, the COP is the amount of cooling effect the system provides in terms of the amount of compressor power required. It is a

measure of the system’s efficiency. Reducing the condenser pressure (and hence temperature), increasing evaporator pressure

(and hence temperature) are two ways to improve the COP.

Thomas Shellhammer

Unit 3.4: Process Control

Assignment:

This assignment is designed to show your understanding of the operation of the control systems in use on your packaging line.

Identify a control loop system that is currently used on a packaging line of your choice and describe with suitable figures and/or

diagrams the sensors, controllers and actuators that are employed. [10]

Determine whether the chosen system is an example of an open or closed control loop system and explain how it operates using

a flow diagram. Provide a justification as to why this type of control loop has been implemented. [7]

Either using the chosen example or by finding one elsewhere in the packaging hall, make a recommendation of how the control

system could be improved in terms of reliability, control accuracy, integration, etc. [8]



28 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 58%, with the scores ranging from 40% to 80%.


1. Describe with the aid of a diagram how the necessary components of a flash pasteurizer control the temperature of beer at

the discharge of the heating section of the heat exchanger. [15]

Using the basic elements of control theory, describe what type of controlling algorithm might be used to control the beer

temperature as it enters the holding tube. Explain, with another diagram, how the various temperature and control signals

move throughout the control loop to achieve control, identifying the nature of the signal joining each component. [15]

What type of control loop is being used in this example, feed forward or feed back, and why is this type of control employed? [5]

16 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 36% and 76%, with an average score of 54%.

Part 1 – diagram should include heat exchanger of some sort, a regulating control valve on the process fluid side (hot water or

steam), temperature probe in the product stream downstream of the heating section of the HX, and possibly a temperature probe

in the process stream upstream of the control valve.

63

See Revision notes 1.2.4.3 – page 11 for flash pasteurization set up and this should be blended with 3.4.1.4 - feedback vs feed

forward control beginning on page 30.

Part 2 – looking for an appropriate explanation of P, PI or PID control. Temperature signal comes from temperature sensor and

may or may not be converted before entering the temperature controller. Within the controller, temperature difference between

setpoint and measured temperature produces an error. Controlling action is determined by the type of control and magnitude of

error. Controlling action results in a signal that leaved the controller and most likely needs to be converted (electric to pneumatic)

before the actuator on the control valve can respond appropriately.

See Revision notes 3.4.1.2 Feedback control beginning on page 17 and 3.4.1.5 on P, I and D control.

Part 3 – depends on how the control loop in Part 2 is described. Looking for key benefits of type of control loop. See Revision notes

3.4.1.4 Feedback vs feed forward control beginning on page 30. Open vs closed loop control.

2. Describe in detail the principal of operation of 4 different methods of remotely measuring a tank’s volume. Include in your

description a diagram illustrating how each sensor is installed and operates. [20]

Using a table draw comparisons of the 4 methods by listing the advantages and disadvantages of each. [15]

12 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 55% and 81%, with an average score of 66%. Part 1 – Acceptable answers include float switch, ultrasonics, capacitance, hydrostatic pressure, differential pressure, conductance, radiometric, load cells. Unacceptable answers include sight glass, bubble tube or any device which cannot be sensed remotely. Part 2 – dependent on selection of sensors in part 1. See Revision notes 3.4.2.2 – vessel contents beginning on page 14

D. McKernan

64

DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2014

Module 1A: Materials and Fermentable Wort – Preparation of Cereal Wort

1. Give an account of the selection and evaluation of suitable cereals for grain distilling and neutral spirit production.[20] This question was answered by 69% of the candidates with 65% passing this question. Good answers included types of cereals, advantages and disadvantages of each type of cereal, specifications for these, typical analytical results…. Excellent candidates took into consideration the potential for operating or sourcing suitable cereals from or for different areas of the globe (& different companies) where these spirits could be produced and what the various implications this could have in the selection/evaluation of suitable cereals (eg cost, legislation, availability of supply, etc). They did more than only discuss a laboratory specification and some of the analysis required, as a number of candidates did. 2. With the aid of diagrams give an overview of how barley is processed to malted barley, from barley intake through to malt despatch, for both malt and grain distilling. Include critical process control and health & safety measures taken throughout this process.[20] Question 2 was answered by 93% of the candidates with only 63% passing. Although many passed this question, throughout marking it was clear we had a number of candidates that were not clear on all steps of the malting process (with some believing kilning took place before steeping, that germination was called fermentation, that there was no need for kilning for malt destined for a malt distillery, or that steeping took place at 46 degrees C). It would appear that these candidates rather chose to focus on the distilling side of the notes or that they perhaps didn’t take the t ime to visit a Maltings to help them in their understanding of this area. Excellent candidates separated themselves by being able to include answers for all elements of the question with the aid of diagrams (including that of a flow diagram). They were able to be specific about the critical control parameters used at each step, included the differences for both malt and grain distilling for each step in detail and provided evidence of their understanding of the Health & safety risks for each steps of the process. Unfortunately only few candidates did this. By using diagrams they were able to logically separate all elements of the question but also fit most information onto very few pages, whilst those that did not use diagrams, found they needed to write reams of pages and still did not include all information asked. The question included “the use of diagrams” to try to help candidates to structure their thoughts and save them time in answering the question. There were unfortunately candidates that answered the question they wanted rather than the question that was posed. We were not looking for detailed explanations of all enzymes and their ideal conditions for operating, nor were we looking for lots of drawings of vessels with no labels or explanation to accompany them either. This question was also an example of where specific temperatures and parameters were needed, rather than just “at an adequate temperature”. 3. Discuss in detail the purpose of kilning (and various kilning practices) and its effects on malted barley for whisk(e)y production. [20] Question 3 was answered by 86% of the candidates with 72% passing. Successful candidates listed several reasons why we kiln malt, and provided detailed typical examples of kilning profiles for both malt distilling and grain distilling HDP malt and differences for both malt types. Examples of kilning practices that were discussed in detail by excellent candidates included peating (why done, how it is done, when it is done, advantages/disadvantages, typical analysis), sulphur additions and how kilning profiles are managed to improve on energy efficiency. Many only discussed 2 to 3 reasons why kilning is carried out and only for malt distilling whisky, not any other products. Again, some candidates were not specific enough in providing parameters/temperatures used during kilning. 4. (1) Discuss the effect of peating on typical malt analysis results for whisk(e)y production. [10] (2) What controls through malt handling and wort production are required to produce a peated spirit with a consistent level of 2ppm phenols. [10] Question 4 was answered by 24% of the candidates with only 29% passing.

65

For the first part of the question we were looking for candidates to name all the parameters that peating can potentially have an effect on, as well as how they are effected. So, to name two examples: wort pH values are decreased by peating, Phenols levels are increased by peating. Candidates that did best at this question not only provided a comprehensive list of parameters and the effect peating has on their results, but also provided typical differences for the parameters they discussed differences for. The second part of this question aimed to segregate those that had only studied the IBD revision notes vs those that had put in extra effort into their studying. It required candidate to stop & think. For the candidate that stated we had clearly made a mistake in the question: No, the “2ppm of phenols in spirit” was not a mistake. The question is exactly how it was meant to be. For sites producing peated brands, the control of levels of phenols in their spirit consistently is important. There is a range of ways for sites to be able to control this throughout their processes. This question was only asking for those in relation to malt handling and wort production. So, for sites needing to achieve a spirit phenol spec in the order of 2ppm, for example, one would normally use a malt with roughly 3 times the amount of phenols to achieve this in a typical malt distillery. Candidates that did best methodically listed a list of controls throughout the distillery and production process, some examples of which were: checking the phenols in the malt, matching the malt grind phenol spec to the spirit phenol spec (either directly or through blending between malt bins), minimising contamination between peated & non-peated malts. 5. List and critically review the different types of technologies used for mashing in both malt and grain distilling. [20] Question 5 was answered by 89% of the candidates with 69% of candidates passing. This question was taken straight from the revision notes provided by the IBD. Those that had put in the work upfront achieved good marks (top mark of 95%). We were looking for candidates to list all the possible technologies and for each, provide information on grist ratios used (for malt distilling technologies) and provide the advantages and disadvantages for each technology as well. More studious candidates provided detailed reviews of all technologies for both malt and grain distilling, information of whether gains were used whole or milled for each technology and provided a brief description of how each worked as well. Unfortunately, many candidates were not able to provide techniques for both malt and grain distilling and only provided for one or the other. Some candidates either panicked or did not take the time to read the question as there were candidates that provided a list and basic description of each and every step in the grain distilling process instead. Another candidate provided a full account of milling only. Please do take the time to read the question to ensure the effort you put into answering the question will be able to provide you with the maximum chance of gaining points and succeeding. 6. Describe in detail how mashing conditions can be altered to optimise extract. Include in your answer a typical calculation of mash tun extract. [20] Question 6 was answered by 55% of the candidates with only 50% passing. Some spent more time on drawing complex amylose/amylopectin molecules than answering the question and then unfortunately ran out of time. We were looking for candidates to describe in detail the mashing conditions that could be altered for mashing, whether it was in relation to the raw materials being used in the mashing process (eg malt quality, grist ratio, water volume, water temperatures, etc) or as part of the mashing process itself (eg mash thickness, temperatures, time, etc) for example. Candidates that did well methodically listed all of the conditions and gave specific examples of what theoretically these parameters should ideally be. They described under what circumstances one would choose to alter these and gave examples of the advantages/disadvantages of altering these parameters. For the mash tun extract calculation, only few candidates answered this part of the question well, with many providing explanations of PSY instead. Those that did best provided the calculation for mash tun extract, they gave a rough explanation of why it is used and provided an example of what would be considered a good result.

66

7. (1) Summarise the typical water quality characteristics for distillery water sources and give examples of water treatments that can be used to achieve the required standards. [12] (2) Describe ways to optimise and reduce a distillery’s water usage. [8] Question 7 was answered by 79% of the candidates with 91% of candidates passing this question and the top score awarded being 85%. Part one if this question was taken directly from the IBD revision notes. The vast majority of candidates did really well in this section as one could achieve a good score by just providing the information provided by the IBD revision notes. Where candidates scored less well was in the second half of the question and really showed those that had not only taken the necessary time to learn the notes but had taken the time to do further work and understand this area. Candidates that did well in part 2 gave specific examples of a broad range of areas where improvements could be made (eg for tweaking specific process areas, selecting different equipment, improving plant maintenance & operational monitoring, selecting new technologies, etc).

Module 1B: Materials and Fermentable Wort – Preparation of Molasses Wort

1. Discuss the environmental and agronomic factors influencing the growth of sugar cane. Include in your answer reference to two varieties of sugar cane. [12] Discuss the factors influencing the harvesting of sugar beet. [8] When attempted, this question was answered well. Most candidates showed a good knowledge of sugar cane growing. Marks were lost by not naming two varieties. In the second part marks were lost due to insufficient detail on the factors influencing and concentrating on the mechanical process. 2. Discuss the main sources of yeast used in rum production and their role along with that of bacteria in the production of different styles of rum. [20] This question was answered by all the candidates and considering the importance of yeast in the production of Rum it was surprising that the marks were very varied. Good marks were gained by discussing all the sources of yeast and relating them to the different styles of Rum. Again marks were gained if bacteria were mentioned by name and detail of their impact on production was provided. It should not be assumed that the examiner knows what you mean and descriptions of the source not just name was required. 3. Explain the role of laboratory proficiency testing and how inter-laboratory collaborative checks are organised. [10] Describe a laboratory method for the determination of each of the following in molasses –

a. Total sugars as invert (TSAI) [5] b. Nitrogen [5]

This question was not answered by any of the candidates. A distiller needs to know this type of knowledge if they wish to operate

as an efficient manager of a distillation plant and it was surprising no one attempted this question, especially when compared to

the very low scores for most of the “last to do” questions attempted.

4. In relation to their use by the distiller; a. detail the different types of sugar cane molasses available [8] b. state the differences between sulphured and un-sulphured molasses [4] c. discuss the factors which influence the distiller’s choice of molasses. [8]

This question was well answered, most marks were lost by not providing sufficient detail for the third part of the question. Part a, Though a brief description of how the molasses was produced and how it differed for the other types the question also required what analytical differences , especially, sugar concentration, would be expected. Part b, answered very well. Part c, good answers realised that the question was concerned with the main analytical differences coupled with economic and plant operation factors.

67

5. Describe, with the aid of flow diagrams, the process of converting sugar cane to raw sugar and molasses. State the need for each process step and any impact it has on the quality of the molasses produced. [20] This question was well answered by everyone who attempted it. The question asked for a flow diagram and the best answered

used annotation of this diagram rather than lengthy textual descriptions. Most marks were lost by not mentioning the impact on

quality for all of the steps. Time was also wasted by giving descriptions of the growing regimes employed in the production which

was not asked in the question. Marks were gained when the candidate included all the potential process steps and not just the

main ones.

6. Discuss in detail the pre-treatment of molasses prior to fermentation. [20] This question was answered by all the candidates and high marks were scored by all. This was the results of giving clear information on the different pre-treatments, focusing mainly on ash and organic matter removal but also discussing others such as pH correction. To gain high marks candidates required to include typical temperatures, dilution factors and operational timings. 7. Discuss the need to measure the different fermentable sugars in molasses. Include in your answer the sugars present and the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of hydrometer available for use. [20] This question was generally answered poorly with low scores being awarded. Candidates need to read and answer the question. Candidates discussed different types of sugar present and where they were derived from which is not asked. There was then a failure to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Module 2 – Fermentation, Distillation and Maturation

This was another year of poor results, but slightly better than last year, with 1 pass each at grades A and B, 9 in C and 10 in D, from 35 candidates. The 40% failure rate included 9 at grade E: the remaining 5 were in grades F and G. Many of the failures seemed to be due to a combination of poor preparation (which should include both factual study and practice with papers from previous years; more about that below) and lack of relevant practical knowledge and/or experience. About poor examination preparation: questions 5 (pot distillation) and 7 (maturation) suffered particularly badly from the continuing problem of candidates not answering the question. What they did write showed that many who scored low marks had good understanding of at least some aspects of distillation and maturation. However, the examination system requires an answer to the question as set, not how a candidate misunderstands it or what he/she would like it to be. Often, I suspect, the problem is lack of practice rather than lack of knowledge. Ideally, candidates should have a competent mentor/tutor to offer advice on answering practice questions from previous years, but if not, test yourself by comparing your answer with the examiner's report. Usually, and certainly it was true this year, questions 3 – 8 offer an opportunity to enhance answers with facts from candidates' experience in the distilling industry (respecting, of course, the confidentiality required by their companies). So I was concerned by the frequency of inaccurate statements. On the other hand, correct and relevant experiential information often contributed to the upper range of marks. 1. Give an account of the structure and function of the following yeast organelles:

a) mitochondrion[12] b) vacuole [8]

One reason for the greater mark allocation to part (a) was the need to describe mitochondrial activity in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions; also the complex structure of the aerobic mitochondrion required a drawing. Some discussion was expected of that convoluted form associated with the enzymes of oxidative metabolism. But most of the fermentation is under anaerobic conditions, when mitochondria degenerate in both appearance and function, and only part of the Krebs cycle is possible; part (b) of question 2 should have been a reminder of that. Discussion of the vacuole was expected to include the three main functions of nutrient reserve (e.g. glycogen), recycling of redundant cell material and the apparently mechanical effect of pushing organelles between mother cell and bud during the growth cycle. There were some good answers, but since it was the last or penultimate choice for many of the 21 candidates involved, perhaps the disappointing statistics are unsurprising: only 9 passes and an average mark only 8.3/20.

68

2. i) Define the Pasteur and Crabtree effects with regard to aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and explain their significance to growth of distillery yeast. [12] ii) Briefly outline (details of the cycles are not required) the contribution of the Krebs cycle and the Hexose Monophosphate pathway to yeast metabolism in the distillery. [8] Questions 1 (cytology) and 2 (biochemistry) covered two aspects of the differences between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism of yeast. Here, part (a) concerns the change according to presence or absence of oxygen (Pasteur) between oxidative aerobic and fermentative anaerobic metabolism, but only the latter being possible when fermentable sugar is present (Crabtree). Of course the biochemical events of the lag phase of fermentation (i.e. no oxidative metabolism of the sugar) were an important part of the answer, but I considered “growth of distillery yeast” to include also the original aerobic propagation. Unfortunately, only a few candidates thought to discuss the low sugar content of that culture medium to ensure efficient aerobic yeast growth. For part (b), requesting brevity and allocating only 8 marks were supposed to reinforce the advice that detailed metabolic chemistry was unnecessary (the bold script shown in the question above is an exact copy of the exam paper). Those who gave a full account of the steps of each pathway got no marks for that information (some describing Embden-Meyerhof instead of HMP, which would have scored no marks anyway). A brief account of the purpose of the two specified pathways was sufficient, mentioning their role in biosynthesis of cell components and giving some examples, e.g. organic acids (including nucleic acids) and polysaccharides. Question 2 was attempted by only 11 candidates. Many “answers” gave little relevant information so only 5 passed and the average mark was the lowest of this paper, 7.9/20. 3. i) Specify five properties of yeast for a named type of distillery fermentation and briefly explain why each is so important. (2 marks each) [10] ii) State the typical moisture contents of different forms of commercially supplied distilling yeast. Discuss briefly their advantages and disadvantages to the distiller. [10] Since they may have different requirements for yeast properties, I needed to know whether part (a) concerned brandy, rum, whisky or neutral spirit fermentations, or I had to guess from clues in the answers. I expected properties such as good flavour production, tolerance of the osmotic stress of the initial sugar concentration, ability to continue fermentation to at least 8% abv (perhaps even to 12% for continuous distillation), complete and rapid fermentation of sugars, and absence of flocculence. The importance of each property had to be explained in the context of the specified spirit to score full marks. For example, yeast which forms clumps is less efficient during fermentation, and (for molasses and cereal spirits if yeast is still present at distillation) by settling on still heating surfaces affects heat transfer and causes charred off-flavour. Many candidates included viability and vitality, and with an explanation of their importance (not how to measure them) these were also acceptable. Essentially part (b) required comparison of yeast cake (pressed yeast). yeast cream and dried yeast with respect to moisture content, “shelf life” and ease of storage and use, although comment on other aspects was welcome. This was a popular question, chosen by 32 candidates and producing the highest pass rate (78%) and average mark (11.4/20) of the paper: the latter not spectacular, at the bottom end of grade C. 4. i) Name four important activities of a cleaning/detergent preparation for use in distillery fermentation equipment. For each, identify a suitable chemical agent and explain its mode of action. (A chemical compound may be named more than once, but in each case that particular activity must be explained.) (3 marks each) [12] ii) Compare the advantages and disadvantages of steam and one named chemical sanitiser for fermentation vessels and associated equipment. [8] Many chemicals are possible components of a detergent formulation with the four expected activities of wetting, dissolving, dispersing and efficient rinsing. Strictly speaking, a detergent need not sanitise, but since so many commercial preparations now include it, that too was accepted provided there was no overlap with part (b). However, repetition was allowed within part (a) since several useful chemicals have more than one of the listed functions. Particularly NaOH, which is both a wetting agent (surface tension) and solvent (e.g. for fatty deposits by saponification, equation required). Various compounds were acceptable as the subject of (b) provided they actually were microbicidal at working strength, but most chose NaOH, peracetic acid or one of several chlorine compounds. The answer was expected to include comment on possible plant corrosion and the requirement to rinse it away, neither of which apply to steam. Incidentally, referring to several claims that peracetic acid did not require a final rinse: that is not strictly true, since it breaks down to “normal” acetic acid. But unless sterile water is available for rinsing, the risk of re-contamination by rinse water is probably greater than the possibility of flavour taint. The 26 answers varied widely in quality, with only 13 passes and an average mark 9.0/20. Several answers described a CIP program, which was not the question, but the commonest reason for a low mark was failure to name suitable components of a detergent preparation or explain the chemical or physical basis of their activities.

69

5. Discuss the importance of reflux in distillery pot stills. Identify two changes in procedure which can alter reflux. Give an account of the effect of increased and decreased reflux on concentrations of flavour congeners of the spirit. [20] Since the topic was practical distillation, the mark statistics should have been much better. The 34 answers produced 14 failures (pass rate 59%) and an average mark of 9.2/20 (only just a grade D pass) because so many candidates did not answer the question. Instead, they explained separation of congeners into foreshots/heads, spirit and feints/tails fractions during a spirit distillation (which concerns cut points rather than reflux) and the effect of different still shapes on reflux (“changes in procedure” do not include buying a new still). So far as flavour and spirit quality are concerned there are two important effects of reflux, and both required adequate discussion for a good mark. One concerns the fractionation of congeners: less reflux increases the content of low-volatile congeners in the spirit, and vice versa. It could be argued, and was in the best answers, that enhanced copper/spirit contact by increased reflux was of equal importance for spirit quality, by various Cu-catalysed reactions and removal of S compounds. Candidates' preferred increase of reflux was by reducing the steam supply and distillation rate, and increasing for decreased reflux; other acceptable possibilities for a standard still, e.g. alcoholic strength of the charge or fill height, would have much less effect. Inserting or removing sieve plates was disqualified as structural alteration, but a still already fitted with a “purifier” and operated with or without its coolant was another valid way of altering reflux. 6. i) Describe, with the aid of an illustration, how the concentration of ethanol and flavour congeners varies over the height of a rectifier column for potable spirit. Explain the reasons for such a pattern. [10] ii) Discuss the possibilities for control of the concentration of flavour congeners in the spirit by adjustment of operating conditions of a specified type of continuous still. [10] For part (a), an explanation by relative volatilities of ethanol and each of the principal congeners, accompanied by the textbook graphs, provided an adequate answer. Many of the poorer answers relied too much on the graphs, but the question requested a description in words to demonstrate the candidate's ability to explain the process. Another complaint: many answers referred to type A, B and C congeners without a definition. Was that because I must already know what was meant (strange “logic” for an examination?) For continuous distillation, it is important to explain that B congeners, conveniently regarded as of similar volatility to ethanol in pot stills, are actually more or less volatile than ethanol according to ethanol concentration, i.e. how far up they are in the rectifier column. All types of still require continuous removal of higher alcohols, and most candidates discussed the effects of varying their rate of removal for part (b). Less frequently mentioned ideas for meddling with the system were adjustment of beer/wash flow rate, temperature, and rate of reflux or removal of volatile heads. How to make these changes depends on the type of still, hence the importance of identifying it, e.g. how do you adjust the still to reduce removal of heads? Some answers did not get marks for a procedure which may not have been possible in their anonymous still. Adjustment of alcoholic strength of the beer/wash feed by altering cold- and hot-feints recycling rates was another possibility for discussion. Prediction of the effect of all of these adjustments on congener profile was expected, and sometimes appeared. The best answers warned that in practice only slight variations are possible because of the risk of de-stabilising the still, and must be carefully monitored. Again the number of failures was disappointing, 12 from 32 answers. The average mark (9.3/20) was only marginally better than for pot distillation question 5, as was the 63% pass rate, although that was second-best of the module. 7. Discuss the importance of oak lignin in maturation of distilled spirits, and the procedures by which these beneficial effects can be maximised. Give a full explanation of the chemical changes involved. [20] The question specifically concerned lignin and its degradation products, but a frequent mistake was irrelevant discussion of cellulose, tannins, subtractive maturation reactions, etc. So the 31 answers had 15 failures and averaged only 9.1/20. Oak lignin is a polymer of guaiacyl (mono-methoxy) and syringyl (di-methoxy) units, and its importance is that yields a range of aromatic degradation products of each by pyrolysis, ethanolysis and oxidation. It was unreasonable to expect a full chemical structure of hardwood lignin itself, but a good mark required structural formulae of the guaiacyl and syringyl units, and an explanation of the chemistry of the development of the range of important flavour compounds in cooperage and maturation. “Procedures by which these beneficial effects can be maximised” mainly concerned the effects of various heat treatments of the wood on the amounts of lignin degradation products, as most candidates realised. 8. Describe, using a different method for each purpose, the measurement of:

a) alcohol strength of potable spirit for bottling[6] b) a named volatile congener (or class of congeners) of potable spirit, and [7] c) a named non-volatile congener (or class of congeners) of matured potable spirit. [7]

The question required a full account of three methods for measuring concentration of named compounds as % abv or mg/µg per litre. Candidates should have realised that 6 or 7 marks required more than a brief summary; e.g. precautions for maximum

70

accuracy were also expected for each part. Preferred answers were (a) electronic density meter (in-line for the purpose specified?), (b) GLC and (c) HPLC. Despite my electronic preference, several candidates scored well for hydrometer in (a) by providing the expected details, including certification by the excise authority (required in UK, and presumably also elsewhere), an expanded scale centred on the density/alcoholic strength of bottling, and explaining adjustment for standard temperature (usually 20

OC). Some candidates suggested sensory assessment as an analytical instrument for (b) or (c). A normal sensory panel does not

provide a quantitative measure of congeners, and so was an unacceptable answer. However, I reluctantly agreed that measuring a particular compound by comparison with known standards met the requirements if the procedures and precautions were fully explained. Accuracy would be less than by GLC or HPLC, but probably no worse than by thin-layer chromatography which I had already decided to accept for (c). I was surprised how many candidates explained several methods for a particular purpose, especially for (a), but only the first (not necessarily the best) was marked. This was not a particularly popular question: only 23 answers were submitted, with 14 passes (61%), but the average mark of 10.3/20 was second-best for this module.

Module 3 – Process Technology

1. i) Discuss the benefits or otherwise of direct versus indirect heating of a pot still from both operational and quality perspectives. [10] ii) Calculate the energy required to heat 10,000 litres of 8% vol/vol wash/beer (6.5% w/w, Specific Gravity 0.997) in a copper still of empty weight 2.5 tonnes from 60°C to distillation temperature 96°C.

Specific Heat of Copper =0.4 kJ.kg-1 K-1 Specific heat of water = 4.2 kJ.kg-1 K-1 Specific heat of ethanol = 2.4 kJ.kg-1 K-1 Assume wash/beer is composed of water and ethanol only and there is a 5% energy loss due to convection and radiation. [6]

iii) Assuming an average distillation temperature of 96°C and a 5% heat loss from convection and radiation, calculate the energy required to distil 4000 litres of low wines of 20% alcohol by volume (16.2% by weight) from the wash. [4]

Density of 20% alcohol by volume: 972.5 kg.m-3 Latent heat of evaporation of ethanol @ 96°C: 837 kJ.kg-1 Latent heat of evaporation of water @ 96°C: 2261kJ.kg-1

Attempted by 17 out of the 20 candidates who sat the paper. The first part was an invitation to discuss the pluses and minuses of direct versus indirect firing of a pot still. Several candidates felt the need to inform me that direct firing is rarely practiced in Scotland these days which, while accurate, is irrelevant as the paper is definitely not Scotch specific and the technique is to be found around the globe. It was an invitation to discuss rather than list, but I expect issues such as fuel choice, copper exposure, still base thickness, laboriousness, control issues including cuts, fuel efficiency, need for rummaging, oxidation/erosion of copper base, available heat transfer area, cycle times and rates, cleaning needs, maintenance needs including still replacement, fire risk, localised hot spots, spirit quality, condensate recovery, possibility of TVR, fuel supply security and the risk of exposing coils to be spoken about. A few good answers, several adequate and a few with only a handful of points. Parts two and three were straightforward question relating to first sensible and then latent heat. Most candidates were clear on the concept, thankfully, and several got full marks in these sections. I was happy for the answer to be given in kJ, MJ or GJ as I had not specified units. Several others managed to lose marks by a variety of careless errors including (two) running the sums on 1000litres rather than 10000 litres, miss keying 6 for 36, transposing figures during the calculations and using the specific heat of water when it should have been copper. Given the speed of using a calculator and the marks at stake it is worth checking your sums! Having said that, I was not too hard in marking down simple errors if the approach was right. I would expect a 5% heat loss to be arrived at by dividing the theoretical total by 95 and multiplying by 100 and many did this. Others added an increment of 5% which is not quite the same but I decided not penalise this as the request may have been ambiguous. 12 passed and the average mark was 12.1. 2. With the aid of an appropriate illustration and diagrams, explain both theoretical and practical aspects of the process of fractionation in the rectifying/product column of a named spirit. [20]

71

15 candidates attempted this question on fractionation, a concept which ought to be very familiar to anyone who wishes to consider themselves a distiller. Three candidates gained good passes but the remainder ranged from bare passes to very poor fails. I don’t even wish to contemplate the level of knowledge of the 40% of candidates who chose not to select this option! A good answer would show awareness of vaporisation/condensation, partial pressures, vapour- liquid equilibriums, binary mixtures, mole fraction diagrams, McCabe Thiel diagram, enrichment, congener distribution diagrams and details of the plates in a rectifying column along with explanatory text. It is all in the notes and standard texts. It was not enough, by itself to explain the workings of a Coffey Still, as several thought. I strongly advise aspiring candidates to become familiar with these concepts upon which the most fundamental principles of our industry are based. Only 5 candidates passed and the average mark was 9.7 3. (i) Using suitable diagrams compare and contrast the features of a) a plate heat exchanger and b) a shell and tube heat exchanger in a distillery context. Include in your answer a reference to choice of possible materials of construction. Propose an application for each, including why it is appropriate. [10] (ii) 10,000 kg wash/beer of 8% volume (6.5% by weight) is sent to a pot still via a counter current plate heat exchanger in which its temperature is raised from 30°C to 65°C. The other side of the heat exchanger is fed with 6435kg of Pot Ale/stillage entering at 98°C. What is the exit temperature of the Pot Ale/stillage? [6]

Assume: Specific heat of water = 4.2 kJ.kg-1 K-1 Specific heat of ethanol = 2.4 kJ.kg-1 K-1 Pot Ale is 100% water

iii) If the overall heat transfer coefficient of the plates is 800W.m-2K-1, how many heat exchanger plates of 1m2 are required to carry out this operation in 45 minutes? [4] All 20 candidates attempted this question on heat exchange and many found it straightforward and scored high marks. The first part invited a diagram, use, description and material of construction of both plate and shell and tube heat exchangers. Many scored full or almost full marks, but some diagrams were poor and a couple failed to give proper applications. The second and third parts asked candidates to deduce an exit temperature and calculate the necessary number of plates. The relevant equations were Q=MCp ∆T and Q =UA∆T and ∆Tlmtd = ∆ T2-∆ T1/ln (∆T2/∆T1) respectively. Most candidates knew this and some who stumbled along the way were given part credit for method. 16 candidates passed and the average score was 14. 4. i) With the aid of any necessary sketches and graphs describe the basic properties of a) a centrifugal pump, [7] and b) a diaphragm positive displacement pump [7] ii) State one typical distillery application for each type of pump and the reasons for it being chosen for that duty. [6] Attempted by 15 candidates and most scored very well given it was a very straightforward question about pumps and their duties. Strangely, some candidates omitted to provide the illustrations and graphs requested, though virtually all were clear on the differences between centrifugal and positive displacement pumps and gave sensible applications for them. 11 candidates passed and the average score was 12.1 5. Describe, with a simple sketch of each system, the operation of a Steam Thermocompressor and Mechanical Vapour Recompression. Explain an example where each would be used in a distillery context, describing their relevance to energy usage. [20] Question 5 invited candidates to show their knowledge of steam thermocompressors and Mechanical Vapour Recompression and I had thought it might be as popular and high scoring as the preceding question. However, in the event only 12 candidates chose it and the marks were significantly less at an average of 9.3. Some were not as conversant with the technology as they might have been, but with others a poor approach contributed. If you analyse the question it breaks down into discrete components.

Make a sketch of the equipment (legible please)

Describe what is going on.

State an example in a distillery context

72

Explain it

Discuss energy in particular

Then repeat for the second technology. Most candidates launched into trying to do several at the same time which made crediting them fully more challenging. For steam compression both Grain distillery “Lurgis” and Malt distillery TVR were equally acceptable but the former was more prevalent. The quality of the MVR answers varied widely due perhaps to some candidates being relatively unfamiliar with them in their own work environment. 13 candidates attempted this question and 6 passed. The average mark was 9.3. 6. i) With a suitably annotated diagram explain the operation of a decanter centrifuge and, indicating approximate operating parameters, give an example of an application in a distillery context. [10] ii) Explain why and where both aerobic and anaerobic processes could be used in a distillery (post distillation), using approximate operating parameters where appropriate. [10] Only eight candidates attempted this question on co-product processing and, of those, only half passed it. It resulted in the lowest average mark at 8.4. This makes me suspect that many candidates are much more comfortable with the ethanol side of things than the resultant (order of magnitude larger) co-products! Most candidates produced reasonable diagrams and explanations of scroll decanters. The attempts at explanation of aerobic and anaerobic processes were much less confident and were variable with few particularly adequate. 7. i) Wort of density 1.050 flows at a flowrate of 1.64m3/h in a pipeline of 80mm diameter. a) What is its average velocity? (Give your answer in ms-1) b) With a simple diagram briefly explain the formula Re=pud/ D c) Using the data and answer from part (a), and showing your working, characterise the type of flow which exists when dynamic viscosity equals 5x10-3 Ns/m2 [10] ii) Explain with diagrams two alternative methods of determining levels in a high strength spirit tank and how such measurements can be remotely monitored. [10] A very straightforward questions on i) Reynolds numbers and ii) Spirit Tank measurement. The former gave an opportunity to show knowledge of laminar/non-laminar flow. The latter could be satisfied by ultrasound or radar equipment. Generally tackled well, by 19 candidates of whom 13 passed. This question was the second highest scoring with an average of 12.4 marks. 8. Explain the fire and explosion hazards associated with the maturing, packaging and storage of potable spirits. Describe the essential safety precautions in each area. [20] 13 candidates attempted this question and 10 passed with an average mark of 11.7. Candidates were invited to explain the fire and explosion hazards associated with spirit maturation, packaging and storage. Generally well tackled although, perhaps understandably with such a wide open question there was a lot of variability in the content of the answers. Good answers would include something on the conditions which give rise to fire (fuel/oxygen/ignition source) and the make up of explosive mixtures. General aspects on fire prevention would include the need for good housekeeping, visitor/contractor control, smoking bans, excluding potential ignition sources and operator training. Explosion risk reduction includes aspects including “Permit to Work”, earthing, zoning, appliance control, equipment design and rating and ATEX and similar regulation.

73

In maturation situations leaks, vandalism, vapour build up, spillages and ventilation/humidity control would be worth mentioning. Also sprinklers and the use of DFW cells. In packaging situations the safe storage of “dry goods”, tank overflows, high level alarms, stock minimisation, tank farm des ign, signage, firefighting equipment and the risk of tank implosion/rupture would be relevant. Also operating systems and contractor control. Storage tends to have lower risks due to dilution where cased goods are concerned but Fork Lift Truck damage could initiate incidents and, as everywhere else, good systems, signage and training are key. Bunding and Foam suppression are also relevant, especially if bulk liquid storage is considered. Candidates made a few good points including the issue with sewers spreading fire at Heaven Hill, the potential “knock on” effect on effluent plant operations and the use of BLEVE valves.

74

FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS

Fundamentals of Brewing and Packaging of Beer

FBPB Nov 2013- May 2014

The number of candidates sitting the IBD’s entry level brewing and

packaging examination, the Fundamentals of Brewing and Packaging of

Beer, was 99 for the period November 2013 to May 2014. The pass rate of

83% compares favourably to the pass rate of 82% from the same period

last time. 34 credit passes and 11 distinctions (candidate scoring 90% or

more) demonstrates the commitment of the candidates to studying the

Learning Material.

Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total

FBPB CF 1 2 3 0 6

FBPB CASK 16 35 31 11 93

FBPB Total 17 37 34 11 99

Fundamentals of Distilling

FD Nov 2013- May 2014

The number of candidates sitting the IBD’s entry level distilling

examination, the Fundamentals of Distilling, was 25 for the period

November 2013 to May 2014. The pass rate of 72% compares favourably

to the pass rate of 69% from the same period last time.


FD 7 10 7 1 25

The Learning Material from both the FBPB and the FD qualifications can

be purchased in book form from the IBD’s bookshop at

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/IBD

General Certificate in Brewing

GCB Nov 2013- May 2014

493 candidates sat the General Certificate in Brewing across all formats in

the period November 2013 to May 2014, down from 519 candidates for

the equivalent period 2012-13. The pass rate of 55% was also down on

59% last time.


GCB CF 23 28 12 1 64

GCB CASK 198 167 59 5 429

GCB Total 221 195 71 6 493

An updated version of the General Certificate in Brewing’s Revision Notes

have been prepared by the GCB Examiners and will be made available to

all candidates registering for the November 2014 examination and

beyond.

General Certificate in Packaging (Beer)

GCP Nov 2013- May 2014

A total of 266 candidates sat the General Certificate in Packaging (Beer)

across all formats in the period November 2013 to May 2014, up slightly

from 205 candidates for the equivalent period 2012-13. The pass rate of

67% was slightly higher than the 66% from the equivalent period 2012-13.


GCP CAN 9 9 7 1 26

GCP KEG 4 11 7 0 22

GCP NRB 29 19 10 2 60

GCP RB 37 46 33 3 119

GCP All Options 10 27 2 0 39

GCP Total 89 112 59 6 266

General Certificate in Distilling

GCD Nov 2013- May 2014

A total of 185 candidates sat the General Certificate in Distilling across all

three formats in the period November 2013 to May 2014. The pass rate of

54% was significantly higher than the 52% from the equivalent period

2012-13.


GCD Cereal 74 81 21 2 178

GCD Grape 1 0 1 0 2

GCD Molasses 1 2 2 0 5

GCD Total 86 83 24 2 185

General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits)

GCP(S) Nov 2013- May 2014

A total of 52 candidates sat the General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits)

across all formats in the period November 2013 to May 2014, slightly up

from 48 candidates for the equivalent period 20121-13. The pass rate of

79% was lower than the 81% from the equivalent period 2012-13.


GCP(S) 11 20 17 4 52

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/IBD

75

General Certificate in Malting

GCM Nov 2013- May 2014

A total of 57 candidates sat the General Certificate in Malting, which was

launched in November 2013.


GCM 27 25 5 0 57

OVERALL RESUJLTS

FUNDAMENTAL QUALIFICATIONS

A total of 124 candidates sat fundamental level examinations during the

period November 2013 to May 2014, with a pass rate of 81%. This

compares to 154 candidates and a pass rate of 79% for the equivalent

period 2012-13.

GENERAL CERTIFICATE QUALIFICATIONS

A total of 1053 candidates sat general certificate level examinations during

the period November 2013 to May 2014, with a pass rate of 59%. This

compares to 955 candidates and a pass rate of 60% for the equivalent

period 2012-13.

Candidates are reminded that these General Certificate Examinations are

based upon knowledge and learning taken from within the Learning

Material, and that study should be targeted towards understanding each

section of this material. Some sections will have more asked in the

examination than other sections; this is detailed in the syllabus and is a

useful guide to allocating study time.

76

SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

The successful candidates from the 2014 Diploma and Master Brewer Examinations,

who met all the IBD criteria, are listed as follow:-

AWARDED DIPLOMA IN BREWING QUALIFICATION

HAVING COMPLETED ALL THREE MODULES

Shankar Rao Adapa Skol Breweries Ltd

Oluwaseyi Alu Nigerian Breweries plc

Temitayo Bankole Nigerian Breweries plc

Timothy Stuart Barber Metalman Brewing Ltd.

Adribert Baregensabe Brasseries Heineken

Katy Benson University of California

Evariste Bizimana Brasseries Heineken

Liesbeth Bommer Heineken Nederland BV

Justin Bosch University of California

Kraig Alan Bridgeford Bur Oak Brewing Company

Guilherme Campos Lopes Tagilskoe Pivo

Tapiwa Chingozho Delta Beverages (Private)

Samuel David Clayman Red Tape Brewing Company

Lorelei Coryn Heineken Nederland BV

Stefano Cossi Wm. Worthington Brewery

Graham Ellis Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd

Felix Eromomene Guinness Nigeria plc

Daniel Everett

Christopher Fearnley

Adebayo S. Fetuga Nigerian Breweries plc

Bobby Fleshman

Kevin Foster University of California

Alan Fulcher Greene King plc

Aaron Gibbs Chuckanut Brewery

Chialee Goh Lion

Eng Chow Goh Guinness Anchor Berhad

Ralton Uben Govender South African Breweries

Shamim T Hamza Skol Breweries Ltd

Kelly Harper University of California

Lindsey Jamieson Tennent Caledonian

David Martyn Jenkins

Sebastiaan Joustra Heineken Nederland BV

Roman Jove University of California

Corey Curtis Kellman Banks (Barbados) Breweries

Jenny Keyport

Myung-Keon Kim Boundary Road Brewery

Justin Charles Kingsford Utah Brewers Cooperative

Jamiu M. Lasisi Nigerian Breweries plc

Jonathan Lee Utah Brewers Cooperative

Steven Craig Levien Lion

Michael Lieser University of California

Andrew Livingston

Nicholas Lubwama Nile Breweries Ltd

Hideki Maeda Kirin Brewery Co Ltd

Michael Magee Eight Degrees Brewing

Mike Matsuura

Barry James McDougall Diageo Global Supply

David John McGovern The Chiltern Brewery

Gayann Mcleod-Graham Red Stripe

Patrick Meehan Swiftwater Brewing Co.

Billynda Fezile Mokoena South African Breweries

Reoagile Monageng

Michael Mosher University of N. Colorado

Aimable Munezero Brasseries Heineken

Timothy Murimi Muriithi East African Breweries

Ntsapokazi Ningiza South African Breweries

Samuel Njuki Nile Breweries Ltd

Ifeanyi Nnamani Intafact Beverages Ltd

Langelihle Ntloko South African Breweries

Tim Obert University of California

Chika Christian Ogbonna Nigerian Breweries plc

Prince Oguguo Nigerian Breweries plc

Felix Santos Okumu Nile Breweries Ltd

Ademola Olori Nigerian Breweries plc

Douglas Owen Diageo Global Supply

Williams Ozowe Nigerian Breweries plc

Kavir Parthab South African Breweries

Costantino Perrone Birra Peroni SPA

Amanda Petro

Jason Porter

Eamonn Power Diageo Global Supply

Karushna Ramcharan South African Breweries

Jonathan Stewart Redman Heineken UK Ltd

Steven Reid University of California

Paula Michelle Rose Banks (Barbados) Breweries

Jason Russell MillerCoors

Ernesto Jose Salas AB Vickers

Emanuel Sawe Tanzania Breweries Ltd

Simon Shannon FDT Consulting

Fezeka Shazi South African Breweries

Gregory John Short Casella Wines Pty Ltd

Benoit Sibomana Bralirwa Ltd

Duncan James Stewart Molson Coors (UK) Ltd

Michael Suflita Third Street Aleworks

Lucie Svejdova Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s

Timothy Michael Symons Lion

Marie-Lou Tathy Zinga Heineken BRASCO

Kevin Te Wierik Carlton United Breweries

Gam Tsibi Heineken BRASCO

Alexandros Tsilimigkras Athenian Brewery SA

Janneke Van Renterghem Heineken Nederland BV

Matheril Krishnan Venugopalan Heineken Asia Pacific

Thomas David Whitehouse Lion

Ephynos Zvainaka Delta Beverages (Private)

77

AWARDED DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING QUALIFICATION


Aderemi Oluwasogo Adewoye Guinness Nigeria plc

Richard Afesi Guinness Ghana Breweries

Joseph Agbogla Guinness Ghana Breweries

Hung Duong Quoc Vietnam Brewery Ltd

Scott Hayward Bluetongue Brewery Pty

Emmanuel Kealeboga SABMiller Africa and Asia

Hussein Ally Kitilinga Tanzania Breweries Ltd

Angelberta Mashingaidze Delta Beverages (Private)

Arno Matthee South African Breweries

Ashir Mori Southern Sudan Beverages

James Mulenga Zambian Breweries Plc

Chishimba Mumba Zambian Breweries Plc

Chisanga Justin Mutale Zambian Breweries Plc

Idowu Hezekiah Oladayiye International Breweries

Isaac Ongora Nile Breweries Ltd

Ikenna Emmanuel Oranusih Guinness Nigeria plc

Victor Phiri Delta Beverages (Private)

Haig Rusike Delta Beverages (Private)

Kenneth Jay Saunders Molson Coors Canada

Eduardo Schubert Carlton & United Breweries

Hiderson Vicente Cervejas De Mozambique

Beverly Ward Lion

Kristin Wellman Craft Brewers Alliance

AWARDED DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING QUALIFICATION


Doan Bellman Beverages Advisory Services Inc.

Andrew Cant Diageo Global Supply

Seth Cohen Appalachian State University

Aoife Hamill FDT Consulting

Eoin Mclaughlin Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard

Kwanele Mdluli Diageo Global Supply

William Morrissey Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard

Hellec Ndunah African Distillers

Eoin O'Keeffe Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard

Callum Rew Cameronbridge Distillery

AWARDED MASTER BREWER QUALIFICATION

HAVING COMPLETED ALL FIVE MODULES

Sharad Bhardwaj Skol Breweries Ltd

Jaydeep Chatterjee Novozymes Switzerland AG

Bhavya Mandanna Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd

John Njoku Intafact Beverages Ltd

Apiwe Nxusani

Olusoji Ogunsola Guinness Nigeria plc

Jonathan Tillson Wychwood Brewery Co. Ltd

Robert Topham Fuller Smith & Turner Plc

2014 Examiner Report

Documents

Transcript of 2014 Examiner Report