Qualifications

REPORT FROM
THE EXAMINERS
2016
 Table of Contents

Board of Examiners and Examination Centres Page 3

Statistics Page 6

Report from the Chairman Page 7

Master Brewer Report Page 9

Diploma in Brewing Page 15

Diploma in Distilling Page 24

Diploma in Beverage Packaging Page 31

Fundamental and General Certificate Examinations Page 47

List of Successful Candidates Page 48

2 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND EXAMINATIONS CENTRES

THE EXAMINERS

Chair of the IBD Board of Examiners Angus Steven

Diploma in Module 1 David Cook Master Brewer Module1 Robert Illingworth

Brewing Tobin Eppard Paul Jeffries
Ian Smith Module 2 Derek Orford
Marc Schmitt Shiona Kamermans
Module 2 Alastair Pringle Module 3 Andrew Mieleniewski
George Ritchie Bob Pursley
Yahia Chabane Module 4 Robin Cooper
Dawn Maskell Ian Bearpark
Aldo Lentini Module 5 Richard Westwood
Module 3 Phil Worsley Jens Voigt
Gary Freeman
Andrew Barker
Jean-Michel Gualano
Andre Dillman

Diploma in Module 1 Douglas Murray

Distilling Michelle Pizzi
Jeremy Stephens
Module 2 Douglas Murray
Graeme Walker
Module 3 Alan Wolstenholme
Iain Campbell

Diploma in Module1 Ruth Bromley

Packaging Gavin Duffy
Angus Steven
Tracy Adie
Module 2 Gavin Duffy
Robin Cooper
Zane Barnes
Angus Steven
Dick Charlton
Module 3 Thomas Shellhammer
Derek McKernan

THE EXAM CENTRES

Algeria Alger - SARL Tango Heineken Cameroun Douala - Guinness Cameroun SA

Australia Abbotsford - Carlton United Breweries Canada Calgary AB - University of Calgary

Adelaide - University of Adelaide
Adelaide - Lion
Albany - Great Southern Inst. of Technology
Brisbane - Lion
Bundaberg - Bundaberg Distilling Company
Cairns - James Cook University
Launceston - University of Tasmania
Lidcombe - Tooheys Pty.
Melbourne - University of Melbourne
Perth - Murdoch University
Regency Park - TAFESA
Sydney - Diageo Australia
Lindisfarne, Tasmania
Townsville - Australian Defence Force
Warnervale - Carlton United Breweries
Yatala - Lion
Barbados St Michael - Ministry of Education
Belgium Brussels - Boston University
Leuven - AB InBev
Charlottetown PEI - Holland College
Creston BC - College of the Rockies
Guelph ON - Sleeman Brewing
Halifax - Dalhousie University
London ON - Fanshawe College
Montreal QC - MolsonCoors
Niagara-on-the-Lake ON - Niagara College
Toronto ON - MolsonCoors Canada
Vancouver BC- BCIT
Vancouver BC - Simon Fraser University
Winnipeg MB - Canadian Malting Barley Technical
Centre
China Shanghai - AB InBev
Shanghai - British Council
Congo Kinshasa - Bralima (Heineken)
Lubumbashi - Bralima (Heineken)
Pointe Noire - BrasCo.(Heineken0
Czech Republic Plzen - Plzensky Prazdroj (SABMiller)

Botswana Gaborone - SABMiller Denmark Copenhagen - Scandinavian School of Brewing

Examiners Report 2016 3

Burundi Bujumbura - Brarudi (Heineken)
Egypt Alexandria - British Council
England Banbury - Hook Norton Brewery
Bath - Bath Ales
Blackburn - Daniel Thwaites
Burton on Trent - Molson Coors Brewers Ltd
Burtonwood - Thomas Hardy Brewery
Bury St Edmunds - Greene King
Hartlepool - Camerons Brewery
Hereford - Heineken
Ledbury - Universal Beverages
London - Institute of Brewing & Distilling
London - University College
Manchester - Heineken
Northampton - Carlsberg
Ringwood - Ringwood Brewery
Sheffield - Abbeydale Brewery
Southwold - Adnams
St Austell - St Austell Brewery
Tadcaster - Heineken
Stroud - Stroud Brewery
Tongham - Hogs Back Brewery Ltd
Wadebridge - Sharps Brewery
Witney - Wychwood Brewery
Wolverhampton - Marston's PLC
Fiji Lautoka - Paradise Beverages Ltd
Suva - Paradise Beverages Ltd
France Paris - American University of Paris
Sigogne - Sarl Distillerie de la Pouade
Germany Berlin - VLB
Ghana Accra - Accra Brewery Ltd
Greece Thessaloniki - British Council
Guernsey St Peter Port - RW Randall Ltd
Hungary Budapest - Dreher Breweries
Iceland Akureyri - University of Akureyri
India Aurangabad - SABMiller (Central India Centre)
Bangalore - SABMiller (South India Centre)
Sonepat - SABMiller HBL (North India Centre)
Indonesia Tangerang - PT Multi Bintang
Ireland Clonmel - William Grant & Sons
Cork - Middleton Distillery
Dublin - Dublin Central
Dundalk - Diageo
Kilkenny - St Francis Abbey Brewery
Waterford - Diageo
Waterford - Metalman Brewing
Italy Milan - British Council
Japan Tokyo - Temple University Japan Campus
Yokohama - Kirin Brewery Co.
Kenya Nairobi -British Council
Lesotho Maseru - Lesotho Brewing Company
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur - British Council
Selangor - Guinness Anchor Berhad
Singapore - British Council
Singapore - Diageo Asia Pacific
Mozambique Maputo - Cervejas de Mozambique SA
N.Ireland Bushmills - Old Bushmills Distillery
4 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Dominica Roseau - University of West Indies
New Zealand Auckland - Lion
Christchurch - Christchurch Polytechnic
Dunedin - Lion
Nelson - Nelson Marlborough Inst. of Technology
Nigeria Ibadan - Nigerian Breweries
Kaduna - Nigerian Breweries
Lagos - Guinness
Osun State - SAB International Breweries
Papua New Guinea Ports Moresby - Vitis Industries Li.
Reunion Saint-Denis - Brasseries de Bourbon (Heineken)
Romania Brasov - Ursus Breweries
Russia Moscow - AB InBev
Ulyanovsk - SABMiller RUS
Scotland Aberfeldy - John Dewar & Sons
Aberlour - Speyside Community Centre
Edinburgh - Heriot Watt University
Inverness - Inverness College UHI
Islay - Ardbeg Distillery
Jura - Jura Distillery
Seychelles Mahe - Ministry of Education
South Africa Cape Town SABMiller
Durban - Diageo Global Supply
Durban - NCP Alcohols
Durban - SABMiller
Johannesburg - SAB World of Learning
Port Elizabeth - SABMiller
Sri Lanka Colombo - British Council
St Lucia Vieux Fort - Heineken
St Vincent Kingstown - St Vincent Brewery
Sudan Juba - Southern Sudan Beverages Ltd (SABMiller)
Swaziland Matsapha-Swaziland Beverages (SABMiller)
Sweden Lillkyrka - Grythyttan Whisky
Lulea - Lulea University of Technology
Malmo - Purity Vodka AB
Switzerland Dittingen - Novozymes Switzerland AG
Tanzania Dar Es Salaam - University of Dar Es Salaam
Thailand Bangkok - Thai Asia Pacific Brewery Co. Ltd
Trinidad Champs Fleurs - Caribbean Development Co.
Laventille - Angostura
UAE Dubai - African & Eastern BVI Ltd
Uganda Jinja - Nile Breweries Ltd (SABMiller)
Kampala- EABL Uganda Breweries
USA Albany GA - MillerCoors
Arcata CA - Humboldt State University
Boston MA - University of Massachusetts Boston
Brevard NC - Blue Ridge Community College
Bridgewater Corners VT - Long Trail Brewing Co.
Cincinnati OH - Samuel Adams Brewing Co.
Cottleville MO - St Charles Community College
Davis CA - University of California (Davis)
Edwardsville IL - Southern Illinois University
Elkton VA - MillerCoors
Florida FL - Florida International University
Fort Worth TX - MillerCoors
Golden CO.- MillerCoors
Netherlands Zoeterwoude - Heineken Greensboro NC - UNC Greensboro
Holland MI - New Holland Brewing Co.

USA (cont) Irwindale CA - MillerCoors Vietnam Binh Duong - SABMiller

Kingshill VI - University of Virgin Islands Ho Chi Min City - British Council
Madison WI - University of Wisconsin-MBAA
Mankato MN - Mankato Test Center Wales Magor AB Inbev
Maryland MD - Frederick Community College
Zambia Lusaka - Zambian Breweries (SABMiller)
Milwaukee WI - Miller Coors
Ndola - Zambian Breweries (SABMiller)
New York NY - Cambridge Business Institute
Oregon OR - Oregon State University Zimbabwe Bulawayo-Delta Beverages (SABMiller)
Portsmouth NH - Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. Harare-Delta Beverages (SABMiller)
Roanoke VA - Roanoke Higher Education Center
San Diego CA - White Labs Inc.
St Croix VI - Diageo
St Louis MO - AB InBev
Trenton OH - MillerCoors
Provo UT - Brigham Young University
Woodinville WA-Craft Brewers Alliance

Examiners Report 2016 5

THE STATISTICS

Number of candidates who sat each module

Exam Module 2016 2015 2014 Exam Module 2016 2015 2014
Diploma in Module 1 468 336 358 Master Brewer Module 1 27 43 33
Brewing Module 2 298 269 338 Module 2 25 25 16
Module 3 251 239 205 Module 3 16 22 23
Pass in all modules 101 94 47 Module 4 22 15 22
Diploma in Module 1 47 60 33 Module 5 11 15 7
Distilling Module 2 54 29 35 Pass in all modules 7 8 8
Module 3 29 23 20
Pass in all modules 23 9 12
Diploma in Module 1 46 62 65
Packaging Module 2 29 41 23
Module 3 20 23 28
Pass in all modules 12 22 13

Percentage of candidates passing each module (average mark %)

Exam Module 2016 2015 2014 Exam Module 2016 2015 2014
Diploma in Module 1 52% (43%) 65% (51%) 57% (46%) Master Brewer Module1 52% (55%) 51% (52%) 46% (52%)
Brewing Module 2 65% (48%) 56% (45%) 44% (41%) Module 2 32% (50%) 56% (57%) 56% (53%)
Module 3 52% (45%) 23% (35%) 53% (46%) Module 3 69% (57%) 46% (46%) 48% (51%)
Diploma in Module 1 80% (54%) 75% (52%) 83% (54%) Module 4 73% (55%) 73% (60%) 73% (58%)
Distilling Module 2 87% (57%) 45% (38%) 60% (48%) Module 5 64% 87% 86%
Module 3 65% (50%) 61% (49%) 75% (58%)
Diploma in Module 1 62% (52%) 59% (46%) 66% (55%)
Packaging Module 2 64% (54%) 67% (49%) 65% (57%)
Module 3 65% (57%) 61% (46%) 92% (62%)

Number of exams/modules entered for each qualification

3500
3223
3033 FD/FBPB
3000 2815
2770 GCB/P/D/S

2500 DB
2269
DD
2000 1890
Dipl Pack
1661
Mbrew
1500
Mdistil

1000 BD

Total
Applicants
500

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

6 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 REPORT FROM THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

The examination year

I have just taken over the role of Chair of the Examination Board from David Quain so I would first of all like to say a big thank you to David for his
magnificent contribution over the last 5 years as the Chair and also the relentless and sometimes thankless effort he has put in to leave the Examination
System in a very healthy situation and still respected as the principle qualification in the Distilling and Brewing Industry. David has also left a platform for
change which I will discuss later.

Again we have seen an increase in the number of candidates with an overall increase of 6% across the complete IBD portfolio with a significant increase in
the Diploma in Brewing ( 20% ) and also an increase in the Diploma in Distilling. The Diploma in Packaging was down but primarily as a result of candidates
being withdrawn due to company support in the ever changing face of the brewing industry. There were 7 new Master Brewers, 101 gaining the Diploma in
Brewing, 23 gaining the Diploma in Distilling and 12 gaining the Diploma in Packaging.

All candidates were notified of their results as per the published timetable and the Award Winners will be notified and their names published after any
potential appeals have been considered at the end of the examination cycle in November. The Board of Examiners sends it congratulations to all those
candidates who successfully passed their respective examinations and hopes that those candidates who were not successful on this occasion will endeavour
to continue with their studies and be successful in the future.

The following report for each Examination highlights the number of candidates for each examination, the percentage pass rate for each module of each
examination and feedback on the questions answered to allow future candidates to prepare fully for the examination process. Considering all the modules
the pass rates and average candidate marks are in line with expectation, apart from Module 2 of the Master Brewer. I have taken a personal interest and
reviewed with independent members of the Examination Board all 25 papers which were submitted to understand why only 32% of candidates passed this
exam. My findings are that where there is any suggestion that a candidate may have been on the correct lines but not quite achieved the correct depth of
answer or, even misunderstood what the examiner was looking for, then this has been taken into consideration but even with this it is obvious that the
quality and depth of answers is not sufficient to pass the Master Brewer Exam for the candidates who did not pass. I would encourage the candidates who
did not pass to re-take the examination but to understand that the answers require a depth of knowledge which can be gained from reading but also must
come from practical experience. There were also a number of extremely good papers which I would expect from a Master Brewer and therefore this leads
me to believe the exam was well balanced.

Examiner Feedback

The Examiner Feedback which follows should be used by candidates to help shape their studies in conjunction with the Syllabus, IBD Learning Materials,
Journals, personal experience, Brewery and Distillery visits etc. to ensure the individual is fully prepared to pass the Examination. I have again included some
top tips as was published in previous years but I would expect candidates to already know these based on published information in notes to candidates and
the welcome pack.

10 top tips preparation and during the examination

Check out http://www.ibd.org.uk/qualifications/examinations/ - read preparing for success and the Candidates
Welcome pack
Read around dont limit yourself to the provided notes. Read the Brewer & Distiller International. Use the Learning
Zone via http://www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk/
Remember by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. Treat it as a project over months (not weeks).
Do not try and question spot the syllabus is being examined
Read the question
Answer the question you are asked (and on a new page)
Avoid being vague or wooly
Record questions answered in order on the font of the booklet
Manage your time v marks on offer
Diagrams practice, suitably sized, use colour and annotate
Write as legibly as possible and in ink

Future Activity

The previous Chair supported by the Council of the IBD agreed a number of changes to the examination process to ensure it remains:-
Aligned with the Industry needs and is contemporary with the correct syllabus and learning materials
Respected throughout the Distilling and Brewing Industry and has a global focus
Based on Examinations which have a simplified and common logical format
Robust with a strong Examiner and Examination Support team.

Examiners Report 2016 7

A significant part of my role will be to drive these changes. This will involve the whole of the Examinations team (Examiners and IBD support members) to
ensure in the next couple of years we are in a strong position to continue the excellent work that has been done so far. As this work is completed it will be
communicated to ensure all Examiners, Trainers and Candidates are fully aware of what is required to successfully complete the Learning and Examination
process.

Examiners

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Examiners who continue to do a sterling job setting exam questions, marking papers and ensuring the
Examination process is fair and candidates are rewarded for the hard work they undertake when they sit an exam. For some Examiners this has meant
marking hundreds of papers in the holiday months and this contribution is much appreciated. Of course none of this would happen without the support and
coordination from the IBD Examination team of Shane, Sarah and Francesca and again I would like to thank you for all your hard work and due diligence.
As with any successful organisation there will continue to be new Examiners who will join us and some who will move on to other activities. We will
endeavour to ensure we recruit the best people into these roles and have a focus on diversity based on experience.
It is also important to acknowledge the support of the IBD Council and thank Charlie Bamforth for all his direction over the last 2 years as he is now
succeeded by the new President Katherine Smart. I am sure Katherine and Jerry Avis will provide the Leadership to ensure the IBD remains successful.

On a sadder note there were a number of IBD members who passed away in the last year and in particular I would like to mention David John who sadly died
in September following a long illness at the age of 60. Dave was instrumental in setting up the Packaging in Diploma exam and I am sure he would be proud
of the caliber of Examiners and candidates completing this Qualification.

I look forward to working with everyone and meeting as many candidates as possible over the coming years and progressing the Examination process.

Angus Steven.

(angus.steven@icloud.com)

8 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2016
Module 1 Materials and Wort Production
Twenty-seven candidates sat the papers, fourteen candidates passed,
which is a pass rate of 51.9%. This pass rate is more or less the same as
last years results (51.2%) and the five-year rolling average pass rate
continues to decline, now standing at 51.1% (last year 54.7%). As in
previous years, many candidates were unprepared for taking this exam,
which is reflected in the continuing low pass rate. In Paper 2, the essay
paper, two candidates failed to answer four questions and as a result failed
the exam. Significantly both candidates passed Paper 1, the short answer
and multiple choice question paper, with flying colours. 81% of candidates
passed Paper 1 (short answer and MCQ) whereas 67% passed Paper 2
(essay). As candidates have to pass both papers the upshot was, as
mentioned above, that the overall pass rate was only 51.9%. These figures
indicate that some candidates have either a broad knowledge of the
subject, or good in-depth knowledge of particular topics, but not depth
and breadth together.
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
The marks for Paper 1 ranged from 28/100 to 89/100, a wider span than
last year (35/100 to 85/100).
Barley, the malting process and adjuncts
In general, this section was answered badly in contrast to last years
results. The lack of knowledge about the interpretation of barley
specifications is very evident. Less than a third of candidates correctly
identified the main advantage that spring-sown varieties of barley have
over winter-sown varieties.
Hops and hop products
This section was the best answered and indeed all candidates were able to
specify the best storage conditions for whole hops. Less well answered was
the question on factors that make pre-isomerised pelleted hops more
economical to use than cone hops.
Supply and treatment of water supply
The question about the benefits and detriment of pH reduction during the
boiling process was well answered. Less than a third of candidates knew
the purpose of a sand filter.
Brewhouse operations
There was an improvement in the number of candidates (37%) who
correctly calculated the costs of two brewhouse grists, even though some
did not even attempt the question and many were out by a wide margin.
The correct calculation of the two hop grists dropped slightly this year,
down from 68% to 63%. Actions which can be taken in the brewhouse to
reduce non-biological haze formation later on was well answered as was
the identification of the Merlin boiling system.
Brewhouse Management
There was a marked improvement this year in the number of candidates
calculating correctly the numbers of brews that could be carried out in a
week, 26% got it right, compared with only 5% last year. 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. The questions on an audit of a suppliers production facility and
energy conservation were well answered however, considering its
ubiquity, not many could explain why caustic soda is the best detergent for
cleaning brewhouse vessels.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
The marks for Paper 2 ranged from 32/100 to 75/100 (compare with last
years 30/100 to 68/100. As mentioned above not all candidates answered
the requisite four questions and others had clearly run out of time for their
final answer, at least judging by its length and quality.
Question 1
Design an audit to assess the suitability of a maltings to provide malt for
brewing. Discuss how such an audit process can ensure that the malt
conforms to the brewer's specification as well as providing assurances for
food safety.
This question was attempted by 13 candidates (48%) and of those 8 (62%)
passed. This was the least popular question of this paper. The range of
marks was 7 to 20 (out of 25) indicating a wide range of competencies in
the answers. There are many aspects of a comprehensive audit including
prerequisite programmes, such as building maintenance and pest control
and, policies for visitors and employees jewellery, for example. Too many
candidates concentrated on the process of malt production, thus failing to
gain those all-important extra marks.
Question 2
Describe various ways of using water in a brewhouse. Include an
appropriate specification for each application mentioned and sketch out
a plant to treat raw water, high in bicarbonate and nitrate, to achieve the
specifications outlined. Propose, with justifications, the most cost-
effective solutions, in terms of revenue and capital costs, for treatment
across all these uses and mention ways of minimising water
consumption.
This question was answered by 14 candidates (52%) with 9 achieving a
pass mark (64%). The range of marks was 6 to 18 (out of 25). Activated
charcoal will not remove inorganic molecules such as nitrate and
bicarbonate, though it is effective at removing organic compounds. Not all
parts of the question were tackled by some candidates, describing cost
effective solutions and techniques for minimising consumption, were
ignored by many. This demonstrates a lack of attention to detail, a trait
that should not be evident in a master brewer.
Question 3
Summarise recent trends in global hop crops and global hop markets.
Discuss the ways hops and hop products are stored, highlighting
techniques that are used to enhance their storage life.
This question was answered by 24 candidates (89%) with 16 achieving a
pass mark (67%). The range of marks was 5 to 20 (out of 25).
This was the most popular question of this paper. The surge in interest in
hops, especially the rekindling of enthusiasm for aroma hops within the
brewing industry at large in the last few years has been remarkable. This
renaissance has been driven by the craft brewers though recently the
multinational companies have been getting in on the act as well. Judging
from their scripts, candidates are in the vanguard of this movement and
many good answers were evident. There were some weaknesses in the
contemporary knowledge of hop supply, the effects of the disastrous fire
in a hop store in the United States are probably not relevant anymore.
Hop merchants annual reports are excellent sources of up to date
information as are the hop reports featured in the IBDs Brewer & Distiller
International magazine.
Examiners Report 2016 9
Question 4 Question 6

Describe in detail the design of a lauter tun with the aid of clearly
labelled diagrams. The batch size of the brewhouse is 500 hl at 1048
gravity (12Plato). Include an account of how the operation of the vessel
can be automated to minimise manual input during the complete cycle of
use.
This question was answered by 20 candidates (74%) and of those 14 (70%)
passed. The range of marks was 7 to 17 (out of 25). This was the most
competently answered question of this paper. In general, the diagrams
were well executed and the labelling satisfactory though there were some
poor attempts. The detail about volume and gravity were given in the
question to encourage answers to provide preferred bed depth and ideal
tun diameter. This information was not always forthcoming. The better
answers were much more forthcoming with the description of how the
lauter tun can be fully automated.
Discuss energy requirements in a brewhouse and options available for
reducing energy demand. Outline techniques to inspire brewhouse
personnel to become fully involved with the purpose, benefits and
means of reducing energy consumption.
This question was answered by 19 candidates (70%) with 10 achieving a
pass mark (53%). The range of marks was 3 to 20 (out of 25).
Although relatively popular, this question was the worst answered. Part of
the explanation is that being the last question on the paper it was in many
scripts also last to be answered. Time management in an exam is critical
for success just as it is in the workplace. The upshot of this was though
whats using energy in the brewhouse was reasonably well described,
getting people motivated to save energy and identifying where savings
could be made was often barely touched on.

Question 5

Estimate the annual brewing materials requirements to produce 2 million

hl of 5.0% alcohol by volume beer. The bill of materials, by percentage of
final extracts, is 85% malted barley, 5% malted wheat and 10% liquid
adjunct. 70% of the volume is packaged into 500 ml cans and the rest
into 30 litre kegs. This beer has a bitterness of 25 BU derived from type
90 hop pellets, 75% by weight are added at the start of the kettle
(copper) boil, the remainder within five minutes of the end of the boil.
Specify the batch size and brewing frequency for the wort production
stage of this beer. State and justify all assumptions and show all
calculations.

This question was answered by 16 candidates (59%) with 10 achieving a

pass mark (63%). The range of marks was 8 to 16 (out of 25). Somehow or
other most candidates managed to calculate reasonably accurate values
for their annual brewing materials requirements though this factor did not
necessarily maximise the number of marks awarded. Stating assumptions
and showing all stages of calculations is important to demonstrate acuity
in this aspect of brewhouse management. Many candidates made the
jump from 5.0% abv back to original gravity with no explanation of how
that step was performed. Not all candidates worked out batch length and
frequency but of those that did, extra marks were forthcoming for
adjusting for seasonal variation.

Module 2 Fermentation and Beer Processing
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
There were only a few good papers, some poor papers and the rest were
clustered around the required 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 practical
knowledge and experience. There were some questions that many
candidates did not read carefully enough and gave answers that were not
relevant. This was particularly the case for the criteria for renovating the
building area and the factors for the choice of equipment for consistent
and cost effective beer filtration. More attention should be paid to more
detailed vessel design, the filtration processes, equipment key
performance indicators, how to control processes and continuous
improvement. In general, candidates should share more their practical
experience and application in answering the short questions at this level.
Candidates should also read the questions more carefully.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
The Master Brewer qualification is a measure of the level of a candidates
competence in the technical management of the beer process and is very
much about practical situations. Its in each candidates best interests to
gain exposure to as many of those practical situations as possible in order
to gain the required knowledge and experience.
However, the assessment of that knowledge is via this exam, and your
examiner is pleased to note that exam technique has improved slightly
compared to last year. In the pressurised environment of the exam room,
however, it is still advisable for candidates to use the reading time
effectively and begin to plan their answers before answering. The very
best paper showed evidence of a clear plan for the majority of answers,
before each answer was attempted. Those that failed had no clear plan
and in many cases did not answer all the parts of each question,
immediately denying themselves some of the marks available.
Question 1
Describe, with the aid of a labelled diagram, the design and operation of
a yeast propagation tank to be used prior to full-scale fermentation.
What standards and procedures should be in place to ensure a consistent
supply of high quality pitching yeast for fermentation?
All but one candidate attempted this question, with 48% achieving a
passing grade. The better answers combined a large (full page) annotated
diagram, with realistic batch volumes, process times, temperatures, and
aeration regimes, including the appropriate level of care for sterility. When
describing the standards and procedures needed to ensure a good supply
of pitching yeast, the examiner was looking for answers covering the
whole of the fermentation department and not just those related to the
propagation plant.

10 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Question 2
Within the fermentation, maturation and beer processing department, a
reduction of fixed costs by 10%, and of variable costs by 5%, is sought in
the next budget year for the same annual throughput. Write a proposal
to meet these objectives, describing the opportunities for cost reduction,
any risks arising, and the overall plan to deliver the targeted savings.
This was a very unpopular question, with only 8% of candidates attempting
an answer, neither of which achieved a passing grade. Unit 2.5.3 of the
syllabus covers the relevant points for this question, including an
understanding of fixed and variable costs, direct and indirect costs, and
how these are budgeted for. A satisfactory answer would have
demonstrated how costs in the fermentation, maturation and beer
processing department are made up and how operations can impact these
costs, including an awareness of the possible impacts on quality and
efficiency when cost reductions are sought, and how these can be
ameliorated.
Question 3
Prepare a detailed proposal for a filter room to deliver 2 million hl per
year of lager or ale. Draw a flow diagram to illustrate the
recommendations proposed for the installation, and describe the
principle items of plant selected, justifying the selection. List all
assumptions made.
60% of candidates attempted Q3, with just under half achieving a pass.
This kind of question has appeared periodically in Paper 2 and is essentially
seeking a practical demonstration of how a filter plant may be sized,
including an appreciation of the effects of product mix, available manned
hours, and the various sources of down-time. This part of the question was
generally answered well. Fewer candidates, however, were really able to
justify their selection of filter plant and its ancillary equipment. Future
candidates would do well to look into the main types of commercial beer
filters and understand the pros and cons of each in some detail.
Question 4
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are to be implemented across the
fermentation and beer processing areas of the brewery. In tabular form,
list the KPIs which should be introduced, their impact on the operation,
the unit of measure and the main factors influencing performance.
This was the second most popular question, answered by 84% of
candidates. However, less than 40% of them achieved a passing grade. To
score well, all three aspects had to be answered, the impact on the
operation, the unit of measure, and how performance could be influenced.
Many candidates struggled with the third part. A senior brewer needs to
have a really good understanding of how to ensure good performance in
his area of influence. Disappointingly, safety KPIs were not mentioned by
every candidate and when they were, tended to be lagging, rather than
leading indicators.
Module 3 Packaging of Beer
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
The marks for the MCQ ranged from 53/100 to 85/100 with a range of 32
marks which is wide. The average was 68.3 % which is a significant
improvement on 2015. Most candidates answered all the questions, which
is also an improvement on last year.
The paper was structured to evaluate the candidates across the range of
packaging processes that they should have knowledge of. Overall the
candidates appear to have reasonable knowledge of one or two methods
of packaging but not across the range of packaging processes to the
required level to give good complete answers.
Calculation questions gave a wide range of approaches to get to an
answer. Often the method used was difficult to follow with little structure
to their workings.
Question 5
Describe in detail, a sampling plan for wort, yeast, beer and additives in
fermentation and maturation vessels. How are samples obtained and
how are results reviewed to ensure quality is optimised at all times?
Just over two-thirds of candidates opted for Q5, with 40% passing.
Generally speaking sampling of wort and beer was well described, yeast
less so, and additives the least well covered, to the extent that some
candidates did not appear to be aware of the common additives used in
the fermentation and beer processing areas. The best answer consisted of
a neat table which included a brief description of sample technique as one
of the headings. Review of the results was problematic for a number of
candidates who were not able to describe how quality was managed in a
brewery, how data could be turned into useful information and how an
appropriate meeting structure can be utilised to help determine actions
for improvement.
Question 6
Review the impact of dissolved oxygen on final beer quality, from the
cold side of the wort cooler up to and including the bright beer tanks.
Indicate a specification for dissolved oxygen at each stage and describe
how measurement and control is to be achieved.
80% of candidates attempted this one, with exactly half achieving a pass.
The best answers covered all the possible impacts of dissolved oxygen,
including diacetyl formation, increased micro risk, flavour and physical
stability, process delays, and losses, and went on to list realistic and in
some cases, best practice specifications for DO2. Description of how DO2 is
measured was somewhat sketchy. Those passing had a good
understanding of the key control parameters.
Questions requiring a drawing were not particularly clear in some cases,
again making it difficult to interpret clearly. Some drawings were
extremely basic. Bottling and kegging questions were answered best with
questions around bottle pasteurisation and can seaming not being
answered so well. For some candidates there appeared to be a lack of
hands on operational experience that reflected in some of the answers.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
This paper had three popular questions that were answered by almost all
the candidate. Few candidates were able to keep up good quality answers
across all their questions, which accounts for the absence of A or B grades,
and may indicate evidence for a lack of in depth knowledge of packaging
types outside the candidates normal experiences.
Examiners Report 2016 11
Errors in key examination technique were apparent such as candidates
failing to answer all the requirements of a question due to not reading the
question completely or choosing to focus their answer on unrelated areas
they felt confident of, rather than responding to the question asked.
Question 1
A new plant is to be established for can filling with an annual capacity of
450,000 hl per annum. The product split is as follows:
100,000 hl of 330 ml containers
200,000 hl of 440 ml containers
150,000 hl of 500 ml containers
The product is a mixture of normal ales and lagers. Due to the range of
contract customers served, several secondary packaging options are
required. The plant will operate on two 8hr shifts, 5 days a week. With
the aid of a diagram describe and detail the individual plant required
including throughputs, capacity, equipment layout, utility requirements,
and manning. State any assumptions made. Which quality parameters
should be specified in the plant acceptance tests protocol?
This question was answered by 100% of the candidates despite the
popularity, and predictability, of a question of this type, the pass rate was
a disappointing 31%.
Satisfactory answers, of which there were a number, focussed on
calculating data and relating this to the base design using sensible
assumptions to justify the decisions taken. Consideration of seasonality,
downtimes, changeovers, efficiencies, shift patterns, holiday allowances,
reflecting practical knowledge is key to this answer. Many candidates
failed to consider the impact of container size and the capacity v-curve in
their answers. When a diagram is requested, as in this question, it should
be produced a diagram, with clear annotation, can be a simple and useful
tool to cover the requirements of the question in a time effective manner.
Some candidates did not answer the final part of the question on
specifying quality parameters and therefore lost the opportunity to gain
these marks.
Question 2
The brewery is considering a technology change from tunnel
pasteurisation of packaged product to flash pasteurisation of pre-
packaged beer. Consider additional equipment, operational procedures,
sampling plans, data capture, reporting, product quality, and
environmental impacts.
This popular question was answered by 88% of the candidates (with an
overall pass rate of 43%)
The key to this question is understanding the additional risk of moving
from a system where the liquid contents, container, and closure are all
pasteurised together, to a system where the individual components are
pasteurised (or rinsed/cleaned) separately. For a brewery, aseptic
conditions and clean room are not pre-requisites for this move, however
sensible precautions to minimise the risks are required QA procedures
need to be more extensive and more proactive. Tunnel pasteurisation
tests the integrity of the filled container in a way that flash pasteurisation
does not, so procedures need to be adapted accordingly. Temperature of
the filled container needs to be recognised to avoid problems with
condensation (labelling/secondary packaging issues).
Some weaker answers concentrated only on describing flash
pasteurisation and missed the opportunity to discuss the issue in its wider
brewery/packaging line context.
Question 3
Describe the components which make up a revenue budget for either a
cask filling operation or a keg filling 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.
12 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
This question was the least popular on the paper (answered by 25% of the
candidates), but had an overall pass rate of 50%.
Good answers should demonstrate 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 are key to justifying decisions on how the
budget was established. Detail is needed in regards to how variances are
monitored, their potential causes and sensible plans to control such
budgets.
Question 4
Prepare a detailed proposal for the modification of an existing returnable
bottle line to allow it to process non-returnable bottles. Use a diagram
to illustrate the recommended line modifications and new equipment.
Justify your recommendations and proposed changes to procedures.
This question was answered by 44% of the candidates (with an overall pass
rate of 29%)
This question is not just about recommending the introduction of a bottle
rinser and a range of secondary packaging machines a more subtle
understanding of the impact and requirements is sought. Justification of
line modifications, new equipment and changes in procedures has been
requested, so some details are expected. Finally a reminder to carefully
read the question, which concerns converting a returnable bottle line to a
non-returnable bottles some candidates compared and contrasted the
various merits of both types of bottle lines and some described converting
a non-returnable bottle line to a returnable glass line!
Question 5
New keg containers need to be purchased. Identify what are the key
specifications of the containers and additional components. Describe the
process for selecting a supplier. Detail how the new containers would be
tested prior to and after use in order to guarantee final product
specifications.
This question was answered by 50% of the candidates (with an overall pass
rate of 25%)
The central focus of this question is demonstrating an understanding that
kegs are not built to a generic specification, but that everything from the
capacity to the number of hand-holds is normally uniquely specified.
These containers are reusable and the property of the owner, therefore
ownership and traceability needs to be part of the specification (serial
numbers, markings, etc.).
Many candidates failed to answer the second part of the question
regarding testing of new and containers in use. The longevity of kegs
means that a representative sample of kegs should be rigorously examined
and tested (sometimes to destruction), usually at the manufacturers
premises before acceptance.
Question 6
Describe in detail the design of a beer cellar and cellar dispense system
suitable for multi brand draught lager beers. Give details of operating
procedures to ensure the system consistently delivers excellent beer
quality in-glass.
This popular question was answered by 94% of the candidates (with an
overall pass rate of 53%).
This key to this question is a good diagram illustrating the fundamentals of
a dispense network, as opposed to a single point installation. A good
diagram (annotated with additional detail and key specifications) is a
prerequisite for picking up marks in a time efficient manner. The second
part of the question was generally answered very narrowly. The question
was looking for a broad range of procedures to ensure in-glass quality from
the dispense system (age-on-sale, correct temperatures/gas levels,
cleaning, glassware quality, dispense technique, etc.) the quality of the
beer from the brewery is clearly only one factor!
Module 4 Resource Management and Regulatory
Compliance
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
Twenty two candidates sat the exam, achieving an average score of 57,
with the scores ranging from 42 to 71. Yet again the pattern of recent
years was repeated with questions on the environment, health and safety,
quality assurance and resource planning being answered more strongly
than finance and supply chain.
For Q5 (principal sources of waste) a significant number of candidates
failed to include brewing and processing wastes.
Q13 (Quality Management System effectiveness) was not well answered.
The best candidates realised the key words as effective as possible
means going beyond basic compliance which can be monitored by routine
auditing. As effective as possible, therefore, means embedding the system
as normal everyday behaviour (the way things are done), linking with
SOPs, training, annual reviews etc.
Q16 (the difference between a food allergy and a food intolerance) was
answered by most candidates as a difference in severity which was
insufficient. A food allergy involves an immune system response, food
intolerance does not.
For Q20 (allocation of utility costs) the better candidates understood that
to calculate a utility cost it is necessary to have the units consumed in the
period, the applicable tariff(s) and direct departmental metering or a firm
basis for the allocation.
Following on from Q20, most candidates answered Q21 (improving the
accuracy of the allocation of utility costs) correctly sub-metering to each
department.
Q23 (Why is it important to plan payment dates for large invoices?).
Managing cash flow was the most important reason but it was rarely
mentioned!
Q25 (the key requirements for a successful performance trial on a new
item of plant) saw a range of answers. The best candidates included as a
minimum: installation complete and tested; product available; supplier
personnel present; documentation handed over; key team members
trained.
Q26 (three factors which should be considered in assessing a demand
forecast) could have included: a rolling programme; the previous years
production; major events and the weather forecast. Unfortunately many
candidates offered supply items such as malt supply, capacity constraints
and maintenance shutdowns.
For Q30 (the benefits of a MRP/ERP system including the brewing and
packaging process) too many candidates simply described features of
MRP/ERP themselves and missed the essence of the question. The
examiner was seeking answers from: valuation of WIP; calculation of
material uses/efficiencies; losses; product cost and overhead allocation to
cost of sales; tracking common material across multiple BOMS etc.
Q33 (the key requirements for effective planned maintenance) was
generally well answered but too many candidates missed the requirement
to have safe systems of work.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
Question 1
(i) Discuss the environmental aspects and impacts of a brewery
operation.
(ii) Explain what can be done to minimise these impacts.
18 candidates chose to answer this popular question, with marks ranging
between a weak 6 and a very good 21, with an average score of 13. The
examiner asked for a discussion and explanation respectively for the two
parts of the question, strongly implying broadly equal marks for each part.
Some candidates provided a simple list of environmental aspects for the
first part which was insufficient.
A number of candidates appeared not to understand the difference
between environmental aspects and impacts which gave rise to confusion
and poor scores. For the aspect of emissions to air the best candidates
included sound and odour as well as fugitive emissions. Although the
majority included (under aspects) releases to water, waste and
contamination of land, a number neglected to include the use of raw
materials and natural resources.
Turning to impacts, this part of the question was generally well covered by
most candidates. However, several failed to include direct emissions from
transport and indirect emissions from remote electricity generation as a
result of local electricity consumption.
Question 2
(i) What are the health and safety and environmental hazards
associated with the storage and use of chemicals in the brewery?
(ii) Describe the best practice measures which ensure that chemicals
are stored and used safely.
This question was also very popular and was attempted by nineteen
candidates with marks ranging from 7 to a very good 20 with an average of
15.
Safety questions are generally answered well and this was no exception.
For the first part of the question most candidates covered the hazards
adequately but several failed to include the potential for musculoskeletal
injuries from manual handling (e.g. 25 litre drums) and the potential
(hopefully a very low risk!) for final product contamination (consumer
safety).
The second part of the question on best practice measures for the storage
and use of chemicals was also fairly well covered with the majority of
candidates describing basics such as: a chemical register; segregation;
bunding; chemical storage cabinets; procedures (including emergency
procedures); data sheets; PPE; safety showers; spill kits; first aiders and
kits etc. The best answers added measures such as: colour coding; use of
non-transferable fittings; portable bunds (including for temporary
storage); mechanical protection of storage tanks from vehicular impact.
Too many candidates failed to mention the safe disposal of used / surplus
chemicals.
Question 3
The brewery is considering changing from a pasteuriser to a cartridge
based sterile filter system on its bottling line.
i) What are the technical factors to be considered?
ii) What procedure should be followed to ensure food safety is
maintained?
Another very popular question with seventeen candidates choosing to
answer this question with marks ranging from 8 to 17 with an average of
13.The majority of good candidates wrote a sound background with the
identification of issues to be considered and the better candidates moved
on to consider the quality and sterility of the filling process without the
catch-all of a pasteuriser to deal with any residual problems. In particular,
the pre-filtration required to protect the sterile filter and the proximity of
the filtration to filling. Types and cost of cartridges were often discussed.
Colloidal stability was occasionally mentioned and the potential impact on
flavour.
To ensure food safety, most candidates proposed a HACCP study but that
was often described as a standard process and not related to the potential
issues by this particular question. Short term quarantine and other
changes to the Quality System were frequently proposed.
Examiners Report 2016 13
Question 4 Question 6
(i) Identify four categories of justification for capital expenditure and
(i) Explain the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which characterise
give an example of each.
World Class maintenance performance.
(ii) For one category, choose a project and prepare a CAPEX
(ii) Describe options for organising engineering spares and materials
justification to be submitted to the Finance Director which
to support World Class maintenance.
presents the arguments to get the funding approved.
Ten candidates submitted answers to this question with marks ranging
Pleasingly the finance question was attempted by eighteen candidates this
from a very poor 5 to 13 with an average of 10.
year a most welcome development. Marks ranged from 8 to a creditable
18 with an average of 13.
For the first part of the question the examiner was asking for an
explanation of KPIs to put the subject into context. A simple list, provided
Generally, candidates could provide examples of cost saving, capacity
by several candidates, was not sufficient. The examiner was seeking a brief
increase, quality improvement or a legal / environmental justification but
explanation (with quantification) of at least 12 KPIs (e.g. planned
the justifications to convince the brewerys Finance Director to approve
maintenance work >90%; breakdown work <3%; planned maintenance
the funding often lacked a proper introduction or discussion about the
schedule compliance 100%; maintenance overtime <5%; equipment
alternatives considered before proposing the project.
availability >90%; equipment productivity >95%; OEE >80% etc). Sadly very
few answers included quantitative information.
Although many answers were sketchy and unlikely to result in approval,
they often contained some good points and several candidates had clearly
The second part of the question was not well answered. Very few
been through the process.
candidates included many if any of the following: effective planning to
ensure spares and materials are available in timely fashion; effective stock
Question 5
control; holding of strategic spares in house; plant supplier holding of
It has been decided to downsize the brewery as volumes are decreasing spares; outsourcing of spares operation to experts; EDI between brewery
overall and there is demand for more variety of beers in smaller engineering and key suppliers; standardisation of plant items and spares;
quantities ranging from 50 hl to 400 hl per month. philosophy of having key replacement whole items of equipment rather
i) How would the optimum brew length, brews per day and shift than time consuming strip and rebuild.
patterns be chosen for a brewery producing 70,000 hl per annum?
Recommend a suitable configuration including fermentation and
conditioning capacity.
ii) If downsizing on the same site, what other factors need to be
considered?
iii) What other complications will occur with more beer types and how
would they be controlled?
Just six candidates attempted this question with marks ranging from 8 to
16 with an average of 13.

Candidates rarely considered the impact of a peak weeks production

requirement being more of a potential issue with a smaller plant and most
averaged over 52 weeks which is not realistic. Some candidates took the
opportunity to discuss brand / recipe rationalisation but there was a lack
of consideration of brew length and vessels required, often just overall FV
& CT capacity. The best candidate discussed the impact on support staff
and laboratory and also whether the utilities plant would now be too large.

14 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION
Module 1 Materials and Wort
Grade No. % performed at intake these being suitable for evaluation of malted barley
A 5 1%
B 27 6%
C 82 18%
D 127 27%
E 90 19%
F 79 17%
G 58 12%
The usual comments on the examination can be made again this year.
Read the question carefully and answer the question asked not the
question the candidate had wished had been asked. The examiners
prepare model answers for each question and marks will not be awarded
for irrelevant or off-topic information submitted by the candidate.
Start each question on a new sheet of paper and carefully label the
questions at the top of the page and also on the front of the answer book.
Making the examiners job more difficult is not a good strategy to gain
extra marginal marks. One candidate managed to cram the answers to the
entire examination onto one side of A4 paper! Only answer six questions
and if a question is aborted make sure that it is obvious by striking through
the answer. Only the first six questions found in the book will be marked
even if there are better answers later in the book.
Once again many candidates failed to answer six questions and in most
cases this contributed to a fail. Time management is very important and
spending too much time on a particular question may result in a
diminishing return on the marks achieved, and yet lose some easier marks
on a question partly or totally unanswered.
Only write on one side of the paper as answers on the blank sheets will not
be marked. Once again there were many candidates who are just not
ready for an examination at this level. Where questions are sub-divided
into parts (i), ii), iii)etc), candidates should set out their answers
accordingly, such that it is clear which part of their answer should be
marked in respect of each part question.
Question 1
(i) Name and describe the analyses which would normally be
completed during a malting barley intake process prior to
acceptance by the maltster. [12]
(ii) Name and describe the analyses which would be performed
after barley intake, prior to the steeping process. [4]
(iii) Name four pests which might be present within a typical grain
storage facility used for malting barley, and what results are
impacted with regard to the evaluation processes described
above? [4]
The key statement in part i of the question was prior to acceptance.
Good answers provided a listing of evaluation techniques that could take
no more than 2-3 minutes to perform (in total). Many Maltings (and
barley storage elevators) do not have the capability of performing multiple
day tests in order that the grower be given a go for purchase. Among
these evaluation techniques are the all-important visual methods. For
example, does this barley meet the varietal expectation which has been
previously established by the maltster? This is usually completed using a
comparison technique to a given chart or picture, looking for identifiable
morphological characteristics. Given this first hurdle to be acceptable, the
barley is typically evaluated for size or homogeneity by screenings. Good
answers provided a brief description of the method using multiple screens
with differing sizes, sample volume and expectations of outcome. The best
answers provided rationale for the outcome, including the benefit for the
maltster and brewer. Barley is then usually subjected to analysis via near-
infrared (NIR) evaluation where the percentage of moisture, colour and
total protein are evaluated.
Candidates should note that the use of the Kjeldahl or even the Dumas
method for nitrogen (and thus protein) level are much too lengthy to be
post production. Some additional testing at intake is warranted for
example, if barley colour is higher than expected, an additional testing
protocol using an Enzyme Linked Immunoassay (ELISA) method would be
appropriate in order that mycotoxin level be established. It has been my
experience that this is not completed unless there is empirical evidence via
colour or visual observation of staining is determined.
It has also been observed if wetter periods during harvest are realized, this
evaluation may become mandatory at the discretion of the buyer or
maltster/brewer. Post these evaluations the all-important visual
assessment is completed. Usually 100 corns are examined using a
comparison chart, which provide acceptable standards or limits
expected. Good answers provided the names of the objectives and limits
associated for quick reference. Examples are: 1. foreign seeds or
admixture, 2. colour/evidence of staining or disease and/or evidence of
ergot (which would be an automatic red-flag of rejection), 3. damage in
the form of harvest or pre-germination, including broken or skinned corns
and chemical damage, 4. immature grains (usually tinted greenish in
colour) and, 5. evidence of infestation via typical pests. Post visual
inspection, barley can also be evaluated for corn size via the Thousand
Corn Weight (TCW), providing a level of confidence on the average size
of a barley corn and starch content. Viability can also be testing using the
Tetrazolium salts method as outlined in the IBD training materials.
Part ii specifically requires the candidate to outline what testing can and
should be done just prior to steeping at the malthouse. This infers that
there is adequate time to complete a lengthy and important evaluation
process which will be indicative of methods typically used to bring the
moisture level to adequate levels, ensuring that the barley is efficiently
germinated, and thus modified. Good answers outlined the viability test
known as Germination Capacity (GC). This method involves the full
immersion of the test barley in a weak solution of hydrogen peroxide, and
monitoring and changing that solution in order that the barley is forced
to germinate. Two other tests that should be included are Germination
Energy (GE) and Water Sensitivity (or dormancy) testing. Good answers
provided the exact volume of grain, temperature, germination liquor
volume (and method via filter paper) and timing of evaluation. The best
answers also provided an example and outlined the method of calculation
especially when outlining the water sensitivity test as a comparison of
the 4ml/8ml evaluations. Trial malting using a micro-malting is not a
typical analysis, however, it can be used strategically to provide
information which is indicative of malthouse performance.
Part iii focuses upon pests. The intent here was not to include typical
disease organisms in the discussion as pests are defined as the multi-leg
critters which can come in with the barley or find their way into a
storage pile. Good answers provided specific examples of invertebrates
such as Grain Weevils, Saw-toothed Weevils and Confused Flour Beetles,
among others. Vertebrates such as rodents and birds would complete the
listing. Candidates whom fully understand the impacts focused upon the
nature of vectoring disease organisms (and mentioned the incorporation
of faeces and contamination a violation of most Good Manufacturing
Principles/practices GMP) and thus creating an environment where
moisture and temperature level increases in the piles, and thus causing a
suitable environment where pre-germination or damage to the embryo of
the barley will occur. Not to mention that pests typically consume
barley, which is the least of the trouble associated with these visitors.
Good answers also mentioned what specific barley analysis would be
impacted by these damage processes such as lower GC, GE and yield. A
few excellent scripts noted that this environment encourages fungal as
well as microbiological growth, all resulting in the same with the
important inclusion of mycotoxin development and induced water
sensitivity.
Examiners Report 2016 15
Question 2
(i) Fully describe the process of starch gelatinization and liquefaction.
[5]
(ii) Provide an account of the major adjunct materials available to the
modern brewer. Structure your answer according to the physical
forms of these materials and explain the reasoning behind their
typical points of addition. [15]
Good scripts provided a complete discussion of the relevant factors
associated with this physical process. This includes the interaction of
water, heat (Including specific notes on required temperatures for a given
carbohydrate source) and thus swelling or gel-formation prior to
enzymic digestion typically via alpha-amylase, thus inducing liquefaction.
It was surprising that so many candidates chose to describe this
phenomenon as a result of barley growth and physiologic changes due to
modification, which is entirely wrong. Some candidates also described the
process of cooking un-gelatinized starches and temperatures required,
which was of course acceptable if the physical interactions were noted.
The second part of this question involving the understanding of typical
adjunct materials available was unexpectedly difficult to organize by
most candidates. Good answers first defined what adjuncts are and
provided the definition expected. For example, adjuncts are any form of
carbohydrate provided to a brewers wort (and I add, to beer) which is
not sourced from barley malt or similar. It was curious that many
candidates outlined specialty malts as adjunct materials. Care must be
given in this definition as many are derived from barley. What would be
included in good answers would be the exception of other cereal grain
malts such as wheat as an example, which are not of course derived from
barley. The best overall answers categorized solid adjuncts into un-
gelatinized (un-malted) or raw adjunct cereal grains in various forms
such as raw, grits and flours. Great answers provided the methods by
which these materials are produced, although not specifically asked to do
so. Great responses also included a description of pre-gelatinized forms
such as micronized, torrified and flaked versions of the same cereal grains.
Again, some papers outlined the processes by which these materials are
created which showed very good depth of understanding. Finally, a
thorough description of liquid forms available (and some solid forms of
the same) such as dextrose, maltose, invert and sucrose syrups including
caramelized forms were outlined. Some candidates also included some
natural sugars such as honey/molasses which are also acceptable
adjunct materials.
The very best answers provided the reason for addition point referring
to gelatinization temperature and need for additional cooking in terms
of the solid forms, which depends upon the specific grain utilized. Most
candidates also provided addition points for liquid forms which include
hot-side addition, or post-fermentation in terms of priming or
sweetening of finished beers. Some outstanding scripts also included
fruits and other additions which also may be considered adjuncts, and
included points of addition and reasoning for the addition. I would be
remiss if I did not mention that adjuncts are utilized strategically to meet
a style guideline or flavour preference. It was curious to me that many
students stated outright that the only use for adjunct materials should be
to reduce cost. This supposition is misunderstood by many and should be
further studied given specific cost of each type on an extract basis.
Question 3
i) Describe the role of water (liquor) during the steeping process of
barley malt production. [5]
ii) Name and describe the analytical procedures which are used to
determine the main quality specifications of a lager brewing malt
which is suitably modified for beer production. [15]
The best answers for part i of this question included not only the need to
hydrate the barley corn for the purpose of germination and a description
of water movement within the barley corn during germination, but also
stated the physical result of water in a steep.
16 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
For example, cleaning of barley, removing debris and unwanted biomass,
transportation of grain (moving grain with water), removal of unwanted
metabolic by-products such as carbon dioxide (CO2), ethanol and organic
acids via microbial involvement, leaching of polyphenol from the barley
husk, control of temperature and the all-important, delivery of much
needed oxygen for the purpose of barley respiration. The very best scripts
could and did, provide a description of not only the role which water plays
in the biochemical life processes of barley germination, but also the
physical role played in the malting process.
It is expected that brewers must understand the indicator standards used
to evaluate the malting process, and indirectly the quality of barley malt.
Good answers listed the requisite analyses (not utilizing abbreviations such
as FAN and S/T or DMSp as examples) and included a short
description of how these methods are performed within the laboratory
setting. Many candidates simply listed the method and provided
reasonable numbers for the evaluation given the context of a typical
lager malt. Some outstanding scripts included the what and how but
also included the why in fully interpreting the expected result via a range
in standard. It is expected in the future that brewers must understand
laboratory analyses, and will be required to describe these procedures and
methodologies. As a note, process control is facilitated on a solid basis of
understanding measures and prescribed, desirable goals. What cannot be
measured, cannot be improved.
Question 4
i) Define the following terms and identify the ionic components of
brewing liquor which impart: [6]
a) Temporary Hardness, and
b) Permanent Hardness.
ii) What impacts would you expect of using brewing liquor with a 1:1
Hardness to Alkalinity (high residual alkalinity) ratio? [7]
iii) Name and describe the methods available for the lowering of
alkalinity from brewing liquor. [7]
Many candidates fully understand the ionic components of both forms of
hardness usually found in brewing and process waters. Total hardness
being the sum of both from temporary and permanent forms. The
important defining point is the anionic component which essentially
defines both. The first being any form of calcium and magnesium which is
in the form of either bicarbonate or carbonate and the second being in the
form of sulphate, chloride or nitrate. The best answers also included that
temporary hardness can be removed by heating (boiling) and that
permanent hardness cannot be removed by boiling.
The second part of this question is focused upon the evaluation of impact
and the understanding of what occurs in the brewing process when the
temporary form of hardness, is at least equal to that of the permanent
forms of hardness. Given that in equal molal (or equivalent)
concentrations of the temporary form of hardness will off-set the
acidifying activities of the cations involved (calcium and magnesium) which
interact with secondary and tertiary phosphates in a malt mash, thus
reducing mash pH. Essentially, the mash pH will not reduce to expected
levels as the anion bicarbonate acts as a buffer and thus prevents this
phenomenon. Good answers provided this brief description of result and
as well, provided a listing of expected beer results. A good list included
(with description) 1. Reduced activity of key malt enzymes during mashing
resulting in lower attenuation/fermentability of produced worts, 2.
Reduced extract result as a potential of higher wort viscosity, 3. Poorer
protein precipitation and thus trub formation and efficient separation, 4.
Potential astringency due to higher polyphenol extraction, including a note
on potential higher efficiency of hop alpha acid isomerisation, also due to
the same phenomenon and, 5. Poorer wort filterability, including beer
filterability during conditioning practices also a result of protein
distribution and type.
Some excellent scripts pointed out the impact which would be expected in
higher pH mashes when considering the activity of lipoxygenase enzymes,
and the resulting poorer flavour stability expected as a result of aldehyde
development resulting from higher pH, lower temperature usually
experienced during turbulent mash-in conditions.
The last part of the question required the candidate to provide the
method, and the specific chemistry/physical interaction employed. For
example, when removing temporary hardness, one method was already
outlined in the first part of the question as a defining point for differing
types of hardness. That description of boiling with the added note that
calcium and magnesium bicarbonate when heated form insoluble
carbonate and evolve carbon dioxide as a by-product was required. A
second method involving the use of slaked lime which is calcium
hydroxide, interact with the same bicarbonates and produces the insoluble
(same) precipitate and water.
It is interesting to note that many municipalities utilize this simple method
for the elimination of temporary hardness for public water supplies which
means it is highly effective, and inexpensive. Lastly, and used widely by
breweries as a pre-treatment followed by off-gassing, is the treatment of
water with mineral acids. It is not simply the provision that acids in these
forms fully deprotonate and increase acidity, it is the interaction that the
bicarbonate ion is eliminated as CO2, forming a highly soluble
corresponding salt and water. All three of these methods eliminate the
anionic component responsible for temporary hardness. Some candidates
outlined ionic exchange as a method for removal of hardness. Marks were
given if specifics were outlined for anion exchange, and thus removal of
the problematic anion(s).
Lastly many good answers were provided by candidates describing
reverse osmosis as a control methodology. It was expected that a
description of osmosis, and importantly the use of a semi-permeable
membrane against the normal gradient was provided, usually employing
high pressure. This expensive method essentially provides pure (or mostly
pure) water as an output and a highly concentrated retentate waste
solution of removed solutes. The best candidates outlined that this output
makes for poor brewing as salts are required for proper pH interaction
during mashing, as previously noted.
Question 5
i) Describe the ways that hops and hop products may be used to
impart aroma to beer. [10]
ii) Discuss how the point and timing of the addition, affects the
bitterness utilisation of whole hops and hop pellets. [6]
iii) Calculate the quantity of 15% alpha acid hops required to be added
at the start of the boil to produce 1000 hl of beer with a bitterness
of 24. 10 kg of 5% alpha acid aroma hops are to be added towards
the end of the boil with a utilisation efficiency of 8%. Utilisation
efficiency of the hops added at the start of the boil = 30%. [4]
The first part of the question carried the most marks (10) and time should
have been allocated accordingly by the candidates. Many candidates
presented a general answer on hop chemistry which only scored marks
where the content was relevant to the question asked. There were also
several candidates who saw the term hop products and then proceeded
to give a full account of the production and use of the products, even if
they are not used to provide aroma.
Many candidates limited their answer to simply mentioning aroma hops
added late in the boil and dry hopping beer in cask or in cold tank with a
large number ignoring the various essences, emulsions and oils available to
the brewer which can be used to add aroma to beer late in the process.
A good response would have also obtained extra marks by reviewing the
various ways which are now being used to add hop aroma which has been
to a large extent driven by the growth in craft beer. Hops are now added
late in the boil, at the very end of the boil, in the whirlpool, in the hop back
and also into the hot wort prior to the cooler using a special vessel. Hops
are also added after cooling sometimes using a special vessel, to the
fermenter, cold tank or even just pre filter. There are also systems where
hops are packed into an in-line vessel at the point of dispense to the
customer.
The second part of the question clearly stated that it was about bitterness
utilisation but many candidates ignored this and answered a more general
question. It also stated whole hops and hop pellets as the scope. The
examiner was looking for knowledge on the impact of the addition time to
the wort kettle but having listed the various other places that hops may
also be used, extra marks were achieved by commenting that addition to
cold wort and beer had no utilisation due to a lack of isomerisation at the
low temperatures. Many candidates gained marks by commenting on the
use of pre-isomerised pellets which may be added late in the boil without
loss of utilisation. The best candidates also included information on the
role of oxidised beta acids and polyphenols. Some also included isomerised
hop extract post fermentation but this is outside the scope of the
question.
The calculation part of the question was much better answered this year
although many candidates still did not attempt it at all. Once again some
candidates managed to take a full side of A4 paper to set out an answer
that could have been presented in 4 or 5 lines. It is however, important to
show the working as marks were awarded if the correct method was used
but had an incorrect answer due to an arithmetical error. It is also
important to sense check the answer it should have been obvious that
2000kgs of hops was incorrect. One candidate also commented that the
calculation question was outdated and the examiner assumes that this is
because many brewers now use a spreadsheet or an App to carry out the
calculation. It is still vital, however, that a brewer at this level understands,
and can carry out brewing calculations.
Question 6
i) Explain the physical principles underlying the mash separation
process. [5]
ii) With reference to these principles compare and contrast the design
and operation of a traditional Mash Tun, a Lauter Tun and modern
Mash Filter. [15]
This question was generally well answered with some very good answers.
There were also some very poor answers with the candidates showing an
alarming lack of knowledge. The first part of this question was about the
application of Darcys Law:
Q = -kA(P) / L
Q units of volume per time
K permeability of the medium
A the cross sectional area to flow
P differential pressure
viscosity
L length
The negative sign is needed because fluids flow from high pressure to low
pressure. There were some text book answers to this part of the question
which is not surprising as a similar question has been asked previously.
Some candidates, however, confused permeability, porosity and viscosity
in their descriptions of the application of this law.
The second part of the question was a comparison of the traditional mash
tun, lauter tun and mash filter with reference to this law. Several
candidates seemed to be unaware of the design of a traditional mash tun
and included descriptions of mash conversion vessels or strange hybrids
with perforated bases but also including heating jackets and agitators. A
good answer would have included a clearly labelled diagram of each of the
items of equipment and would have reviewed the design with particular
reference to the bed permeability (including grist production and
percentage fractions), cross sectional area of the filter bed (bringing out
the differences between the systems), differential pressure across the
filter bed and how this could be controlled (by raking in a lauter tun and
pumping and squeezing in a mash filter), viscosity and how this could be
reduced by heating the mash prior to run off, and filtration length which is
related to the cross sectional area. The trade-off between these factors
with the different systems should have been explained. Typical values
should have been quoted for the various parameters and it is important
that the correct units are quoted. Several candidates confused mm and cm
with consequences to the marks awarded. It is also not adequate to simply
say large, larger and very large. The details of the design and operation
were also required not just a list of principle dimensions.
Examiners Report 2016 17
Question 7
List the parameters to be checked when reducing the overall evaporation
during the wort boil from 8% down to 4%. For each item discuss the likely
impact and how you would alleviate any change. [20]
This was not a very popular question and it is suspected that many
candidates were put off by the different wording of the question even
though the content required was familiar.
All the candidate had to do was to review the usual list of chemical and
physical changes that occur during the boiling process and for each discuss
the likely impact of a reduced overall evaporation rate.
A good answer would initially have considered the ways that the overall
evaporation rate could be reduced. The boil time could be reduced; the
steam or other heat input could be reduced over the same boil time or a
combination of the two. For example, a regime with a simmer boil over the
same time with a rapid boil off at the end to drive off any undesirable
volatiles. Another option which should have been mentioned is the use of
alternative equipment such as a Merlin boiler or a wort stripper.
Among the items to be considered are: sterilising the wort, denaturing
enzymes, concentration of the wort and the volume loss, colour and
flavour impacts, formation and removal of volatiles, pH reduction,
dissolving and isomerisation of alpha acid, protein precipitation, protein
polyphenol reactions, trub formation, formation of reducing compounds,
and oxalate precipitation. For each of these the impact should have been
discussed and how these could be alleviated.
Question 8
i) Describe the plant required to CIP (clean in place) the brewhouse
vessels, equipment and the interconnecting pipework. [10]
ii) Set out the cleaning frequency and typical cleaning regimes to be
used for the various brewhouse applications. [6]
iii) Why is it important to regularly clean the plant used to process the
wort upstream of the wort boiling stage? [4]
Some of the answers to this question were very good but others were
clearly a fill in answer of last resort. Some of the answers were very
difficult to mark with items relevant to parts one and two mixed up in
lengthy rambling answers. A surprising number of candidates included
information on the cleaning of equipment outside of the brewhouse
including fermenting vessels and bright beer tanks, which did not receive
any marks and simply wasted time.
The first part should have included a diagram of the cleaning equipment
proposed which should have been clearly labelled. This could range from
complex fixed installation to simple equipment which would be more
common in a smaller brewery. The key was that the equipment design
should be valid and justified for the application. The description should
also have included the equipment in the field not just the tanks and
pumps used to store and deliver the detergent. Items of plant design,
should have been included such as cleaning velocity, pipework design,
elimination of dead legs, spray ball design, elimination of shadow areas in
vessels etc.
For part two the candidate should have considered the different cleaning
challenges for the various items of equipment. Many candidates simply
said caustic or acid without details of the concentrations and temperatures
required. The plant upstream of the wort cooler requires a lower cleaning
frequency than that after the wort cooler for microbiological reasons but
may need cleaning to reduce fouling on heat exchanger surfaces for
efficiency reasons. The wort cooler will also have its own specific cleaning
needs due to the fouling but also the need for sterile wort. The cleaning
regimes and chemicals used will also be different for the different
applications. Sequestrients, chelating agents and other additives may be
needed for the heavier cleaning duties whilst a sterilant is often used for
the more microbiologically sensitive areas.
18 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
For part three many candidates did not include the significance of ATNC
formation despite a similar question being recently asked. The need for
the product to be wholesome and to conform to local hygiene regulations
should also have been included as well as the need to control scale and
fouling on heat exchanger surfaces. Another factor that should have been
mentioned is that spent grains are often fed to animals and thus
potentially enter the human food chain, with most countries having
regulations covering this area.
Module 2 Yeast and Beer
Grade No. %
A 0 0
B 24 0.08
C 65 22%
D 107 36%
E 64 21%
F 32 11%
G 8 3%
Based on our experience of marking this years scripts there are a number
of best practices that we recommend to future candidates:
Before the exam
Study the entire syllabus. The examiners may ask question on
any area. Do not try to guess the areas where questions may
be asked as this may result in you not being able to answer a
sixth question.
Study early and often. Start at least six months before the
exam and study every day. By all means attend prep sessions,
but do not rely on these solely as a means to attain a passing
grade.
Study breadth and depth. Do not only study areas that you are
most familiar. It is important that candidates study both the
theoretical and practical aspects of the syllabus. The syllabus
covers brewing practices across the world: if your answer is
limited to your experiences in your brewery, then you do not
have abroad enough view.
Gain practical experience in both lab and production. Spend
time understanding both sides of the business by working in
these areas. It is unlikely you will be able to gain this
knowledge by solely reading about it.
Read beyond the revision notes. Review brewing literature for
new developments that are occurring. Beware that a single
article does not mean the practice is widely used in the
industry.
During the exam
Read the questions carefully. Pick six questions that are likely
to give you the maximum number of points.
Create clear answers. Write clearly; examiners attempt to
decipher handwriting, but can only give points for information
they can read. Start your answers to each question on a fresh
page. Break your answer down into sections so the information
for each part of the question is easy to identify. Using bullet
points can be a very effective way of communicating your
knowledge to the examiner. Highlighting words or writing in
different colour pens is not helpful to the examiner; use
sparingly, if at all.
 Answer the questions asked. Make sure you answer the
question that was asked. Do not give an answer to the
question you wish had been asked.
Be specific. Full points will not be awarded for vague answers;
such as oxygen can affect fermentation performance.
Question 1
i) Give two examples of spontaneous mutations of brewers yeast,
how they affect yeast, and the final beer. [6]
ii) Give two examples where recombinant DNA technology has been
proposed to improve brewers yeast: include the donor organism,
enzyme, and the benefit. [6]
iii) Using examples, briefly discuss why yeast recombinant DNA
technology has not been adopted by the brewing industry, while it
has been adopted for agricultural crops. [8]
This required knowledge of genetics and how recombinant DNA
technology has been applied. Although some candidates had prepared for
this question, it was the least frequently answered question of the exam.
A point was awarded for each type of mutation, then two points for their
impact on the final beer. Spontaneous mutations included those affecting
flocculation, ability to ferment maltotriose, and respiratory deficient
mutations. In part ii) examples of recombinant DNA technology that had
been proposed to improve brewers yeast included glucoamylase,
glucanase, alpha acetolactate decarboxylase, and proteases. A point was
given each for the donor organism, enzyme, and the benefit. Part iii)
required a discussion of the reasons why agriculture had adopted
recombinant DNA technology, however, generally candidates were less
able to identify the reasons. Successful answers included a history of crop
breeding, improving food supply, increased yield, reduction of costs, and
that perceived concerns out-weigh the benefits. Reasons why engineered
yeast has not been adopted include labeling mandatory in some countries,
promotion of traditional processes by brewers, unclear benefits for the
consumer, and other solutions are available for many issues.
Question 2
Briefly describe the contribution of the following compounds to beer
flavour and the factors that affect their levels during fermentation and
maturation:
a) Higher alcohols. [7]
b) Esters. [7]
c) Acetaldehyde. [6]
This was one of the most frequently answered questions, which many
candidates were well prepared to answer. It was a straightforward
question requiring the candidate to describe the factors that affected
three different flavour compounds. Points were awarded for factors that
affect higher alcohols including oxygen and yeast growth, FAN,
temperature, and pressure. Temperature, FAN, wort gravity, zinc, and
pressure were all factors affecting esters that were awarded points.
Candidates were given points for factors that impact acetaldehyde, which
included oxygen, temperature, FAN, zinc, Zymomonas, and premature
separation of yeast for the beer. To get full points candidates need to
describe how these factors impacted flavour compounds. Detailed
descriptions of biochemical pathways did not gain further points.
Question 3
Briefly describe:-
a) Stokes Law and explain how it applies to the use of finings and
centrifugation. [10]
b) The source of isinglass, its composition, and its mode of action. [4]
c) Three important aspects that should be considered in the design of
a disc-bowl centrifuge and their impact. [6]
This question combined both the theoretical aspects of using finings and
centrifugation for beer clarification. Candidates were generally successful
in answering this question, and it had the highest average mark of the
paper. In part a) a point was given for being able to write the equation
correctly and a point to describe each term. Three points were available
for being able explain the how finings increased the size and density of
particles and how centrifugation increased the gravity factor.
In part b a point was awarded for knowing that isinglass was derived from
fish. Further points were awarded for describing it as a collagen, with a
high percent of glycine, proline etc, and that it has a positive charge that
attracts the negatively charged yeast.
Important aspects of centrifuge design were the most difficult part of the
question for candidates to answer. A maximum of two points each were
awarded for describing the importance of maximizing yield, minimizing
oxygen, temperature increase, and shear, as well as avoiding a pressure
drop.
Question 4
Outline the origins of the following off-flavours in a lager beer, and
actions that can be taken by brewery and/or QA to control them:-
a) Chlorophenols. [6]
b) 4-vinyl guaiacol. [7]
c) Iron. [7]
This question was one of the least answered questions by this years
candidates. Three to four points were awarded for identifying the source
of each off-flavour. In addition, up to four points were awarded for means
to control these flavours. For chlorophenols points were awarded for
chlorine in water, hypochlorite in cleaning solutions used in the brewery
and in draft systems. To control chlorophenols points were awarded for
carbon filtration of the water supply and elimination or strict use of
hypochlorite. A minority of answers provided information on the
extraction of ferulic acid during mashing and its conversion to 4-vinyl
guaiacol (4VG) during kettle boil. However, most answers identified wild
yeast as a source of 4VG. To prevent 4VG points were awarded for
monitoring yeast cultures, sanitization procedures, not holding mash at
43oC and avoiding excessive boil times. For the sources of iron in water
points were awarded for water source, diatomaceous earth (DE), mild
steel vessels and vessels that had been improperly pacified. Ways to
control iron included sourcing of DE, and /or pretreatment, proper
pacification of vessels and kegs, and replacement of vessels, pipework, and
fittings.
Question 5
Discuss conditions that affect the cleaning-in-place (CIP) of surfaces, in
relation to:-
a) Mechanical. [6]
b) Chemical. [6]
c) Temperature. [3]
d) Time. [5]
A large majority of the candidates answered this question. Candidates
that had practical experience with cleaning or who had studied this section
were able to attain high marks. Points were awarded for mechanical
conditions such as flow rates, turbulence, shear stress, pressure and
pressure monitoring, water hammer, as well as spray ball and gamma jet
design. In terms of chemical conditions candidates were awarded points
for initial cleaner concentration and the need to top up, dilution, inclusion
of wetting agents, neutralization with carbon dioxide, and a discussion of
reusable and single use cleaning procedures. Points were also awarded
for mentioning that the chemical choice would depend on the soil being
removed. When it came to temperature, conditions appropriate
information was initial temperature, ability to cool the pipework and
vessel and the return of hot cleaner in reusable system. For conditions
related to time points were given for total process time, rinse times, time
to react with soils, ability to drain vessels and the importance of valve
sequencing. Although most realized that longer times could lead to better
cleaning, only some realized the importance of keeping the total cycle time
as short as possible.
Examiners Report 2016 19
Question 6
i) Outline the advantages and disadvantages of adding oxygen or air
to cold wort. [8]
ii) Outline the impact of too much and too little oxygen on
fermentation and beer flavour compounds. [8]
iii) List two advantages and two disadvantages of using active dried
yeast. [4]
This was one of the most frequently answered questions. The first part of
the question asked about the difference between adding oxygen and air to
wort. The advantages of using air included its low cost, it mixes the
fermenter and it has a maximum saturation of around 9 ppm. The
disadvantages include oxygen level is difficult to measure due to entrained
bubbles, and it will create foam. The advantages of oxygen are it can
saturate wort to about 30 ppm, it is easy to measure and so easier to
control. Disadvantages of oxygen include it is more expensive and it does
not mix the fermenter, therefore stratification can occur. Some
candidates misinterpreted this question as being about the detrimental
effects of oxygen on wort. After a discussion between the examiners they
decided that they would award half points for items about oxidation.
Four points each were awarded for the effects of too much or too little
oxygen in part ii. Too much oxygen can lead to fast fermentations, yeast
autolysis, lower esters, higher higher-alcohols, faster acetaldehyde and
diacetyl uptake, but can lead to high acetaldehyde levels if autolysis
occurs. Too little oxygen can lead to many of the opposite effects, as well
as lead to elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide.
Candidates that provided detailed information on fermentation and yeast
did not receive any additional points, as this was not asked for.
The third part of this question asked about the candidates knowledge of
active dried yeast, which is increasingly used in small breweries.
Advantages included: does not require propagation, shelf stable, no
propagation equipment needed, while the disadvantages included: need
careful rehydration, may be contaminated, and limited yeast strain
selection.
Question 7
Outline the following aspects of the yeast management process in a large
brewery:-
a) The stages involved in yeast propagation using a diagram that
includes vessels and services. The process control points and
measurements required during propagation. [13]
b) The storage conditions and vessel design required to ensure healthy
yeast for reuse within the brewery. [7]
A large number of the candidates answered this question. Overall most
candidates were able to successfully answer the questions. Candidates
with practical experience in yeast management or who undertook the
required study as part of module 2 were able to attain high marks. The
question was over two parts. The first section of the question involved
examining the candidates understanding of yeast propagation within a
brewery. The candidates were required to discuss using diagrams the
various stages involved in yeast propagation, including vessels, services,
process control points and measurements required during yeast
propagation.
Points were awarded for showing a diagram of a propagation system
which listed the various stages of propagation. Points were awarded for
those that showed the various stages of propagation from slope to the
final propagation vessel, indicating vessel shape and sizes, services etc. An
understanding of scaling and when within the propagation process it is
appropriate to transfer from one vessel to a larger vessel. Points were
also given for understanding process conditions such as temperature,
agitation and time. Information on nutritional requirements (wort,
oxygen/air and zinc) were also awarded marks. Marks were also given in
answers that discussed monitoring yeast growth (cell counts and how it is
measured) as well as monitoring yeast health (yeast viability and
associated methods). Marks were also given if candidates also discussed
the importance of hygiene and microbiological testing for contaminants
such as bacteria and wild yeast.
20 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Some candidates also attempted to discuss the various scientific
conditions used to store culture yeast prior to propagation, but this was
not asked in the question and as such no extra marks were given.
Most candidates were very successful in producing detailed diagrams of
the various stages of propagation and those candidates that detailed the
necessary process conditions and monitoring processes at each stage of
propagation were awarded higher marks.
The second part of the question required candidates to discuss the storage
conditions and vessel design required to ensure heathy yeast. Marks were
given for vessel design in particular vessel shape, sampling points,
temperature monitoring, services such as CIP and cooling as well as
agitation/mixing. Marks were also given when candidates listed the
appropriate storage conditions for brewing yeast. These included storage
temperature, time in storage, agitation/mixing process, controlling the
level of alcohol in the yeast slurry (ie. dilution) and the importance of
minimising oxygen ingress.
This part of the question was very successfully completed by a majority of
the candidates who showed they had a good understanding of the
necessary storage requirements for brewing yeast to maintain its vitality
and viability. Most candidates were able to draw a detailed diagram of a
yeast storage vessel with the necessary services and monitoring probes
listing the appropriate storage conditions.
Question 8
i) Outline the purpose of beer maturation. [4]
ii) Briefly describe the following:- [8]
a) Traditional lagering/maturation.
b) Three strategies to accelerate maturation.
iii) Describe the formation and reduction of diacetyl and related
compounds including the effects this has on beer flavour. [8]
This was the question answered by the greatest number of candidates
sitting the Module 2 paper and was mostly answered well. The first part of
the question asked the candidates to outline the purpose of maturation.
The reasons range from the removal of undesirable flavours, reduction of
the concentration of yeast in suspension, carbonation and providing the
opportunity for the formation of chill haze.
The second part of the question was divided into two sections. The first of
these required a brief description of traditional lagering, where the
examiners were looking for answers which talked about long periods of
time and low temperatures. The second section was looking for examples
of strategies for the acceleration of maturation, these included; increasing
temperature and reducing storage time, continuous maturation and the
use of novel products or enzymes. In the case of novel products and
enzymes, only half the available marks were awarded if the candidate gave
the commercial name without the scientific name. Many candidates
suggested krusening as method to accelerate maturation time. Upon
discussion between the examiners it was decided not to award marks for
this answer as this does not necessarily shorten (accelerate) maturation
time.
The final part of the question asked for a description of the formation and
reduction of diacetyl, therefore the examiners awarded marks to the
answers that discussed the valine pathway, through to 2,3-butanediol. One
mark was available for providing a diagram. Good answers discussed the
excretion of alpha acetolactate from the cell, where it is chemically
converted to diacetyl (not by the yeast cell itself), and also mentioned the
influence of temperature and pH. Candidates were also asked to discuss
the effect on flavour, as the question had asked both about diacetyl
formation and reduction, marks were available for answers which
discussed the flavour contributions of diacetyl, acetonin and 2,3-
butanediol. Many candidates included the formation and reduction of 2,3-
pentanedione, this was not part of the question and no marks were
awarded for this.
Module 3 Packaging and Process Technology Question 2
Grade No. %
i) Compare the potential impact on quality between the short tube
A 1 0.4%
non-returnable bottle (NRB) and can filling processes, and for each
B 21 8%
list the necessary actions to maximise product shelf life. [12]
C 51 20%
ii) Identify the typical in-line and off-line instrumentation equipment
D 56 22%
and the methodology for measurement of small package dissolved
E 68 27%
oxygen? [8]
F 33 13%
G 21 8%
i) The word compare should invite a candidate to begin the script
with an explanation of NRB vs Can filling methodology as the basis
The following report attempts to provide candidates and tutors with
for comparison. This to be followed by notes (ideally tabular) which
summary feedback on examination performance and for future
describe those process features which maximise quality, especially
preparation the key requirements in answering each question.
shelf life and O exclusion. The notes need to be factual to support
the comparisons i.e. (Top/entry area Can >> Bottle ca 7:1)., physical
As a general comment albeit with some exceptions, a significant number of properties (Metal vs Glass) and process differences (Crowning vs
scripts continued to demonstrate poor preparation, inadequate exam
Seaming).
technique and where required diagrams and illustrations were poorly
drawn and annotated. Poor hand writing and grammar (some scripts
ii) The starting point of this question should invite a statement to
virtually illegible) hampered marking and is not representative of
show knowledge that In line measures PRODUCT DO and Off
competency and ability expected at this Diploma level. line is a measure of TOTAL IN PACKAGE DO (TIPO). This is to be
followed by appropriate sketches and explanation to describe the
The message of previous years reminding candidates to read and only
function by which the 3* typical technologies operate, their
answer the question is still unheeded in many scripts. Candidates should calibration and application for both ON & OFF line functions. (*E.g
be reminded to ensure comply with the following:-
Galvanic, Polarmetric & Luminosence).Many candidates failed to
i) Effective exam technique, particularly with respect to providing
demonstrate sufficient comprehension of the basic distinction
concise and relevant wording and the benefit of a tabular framework
between ON & OFF - line measurement and the fundamental
for comparisons.
elements of electrolytic action by which measurement can be
ii) Structure the answer to reflect the potential marks available. derived.
iii) Importance of reasonably legible hand writing and correct grammar.
iv) DO start a new question on a new page.
Question 3
v) DO NOT to leave blank pages between questions.
vi) Answers to be written in INK only, pencil are NOT acceptable.
With respect to glass bottle packaging materials:-
vii) Mark front page of the script with questions in the ordered answered.
a) Briefly define the function of, and associated materials used for,
viii) Enter exam properly equipped with appropriate writing and colouring
each of the following:-
implements, rule compass etc.
- Primary packaging. [4]
- Secondary packaging. [2]
Question 1
- Tertiary packaging. [2]
b) Outline the significance and purpose of glass bottle specifications to
i) Describe with the aid of diagrams the construction process of a 50 ensure packaging quality and compliance. [5]
litre stainless steel keg (excluding the extractor). Identify the grade
c) Identify the issues and any requirements to be considered when
of materials for construction. [10] preparing a company policy for the minimisation of waste and
ii) Identify and describe the (in-line) and (off- line) processes for
environmental impact and include any guiding principles. [7]
maintaining and checking keg integrity with respect to Quality, and
Health and Safety. [10] a) The syllabus provides concise definitions for Primary, Secondary and
Tertiary packing and it was disappointing to not find this reflected in
i) The answer should initially provide an annotated illustration/
a significant proportion of the scripts. A high proportion of
diagram of a typical stainless steel keg to accurately identify the key
candidates were unable to demonstrate a clear distinction between
parts and their function. For each component parts a table or
the function of each type. Unnecessary statements relating to Cans,
description of the typical specifications of material of construction Kegs and Casks were also evident, sadly NOT required as the
is required.( e.g. Top & Bottom Chimes - AISI 304 -special
question is specifically with respect to Glass Bottle.
hardening- typically 1.7/2.00 mm thickness). The expected answer
should then proceed to concisely describe sequentially, each stage b) Outline implies expressing concisely only the dimensional, material
of manufacture and assembly (e.g. from coiled metal to finished
quality, handling and inspection processes significant to the bottle
and tested product) including the specific welding activities
product and packaging process. A number of candidates failed to
involved. Marks are contributed where candidates were able to
answer this part in preference to (a) and an attempt on (c)
demonstrate metallurgic knowledge and hence reason of material
choice/application for ASIN 316, 314 & 304. c) Many candidates attempted to answer this question by merely listing
a series of individual actions e.g. (Training required for operators)
ii) Candidates describing in-line process checks in a manner that
and hence failed to demonstrate an understanding that it is the
aligned with the keg packaging process generally demonstrated POLICY drives / determines necessary action within a business.
logical and concise knowledge. However, reference to the use of
Surprisingly only 1 candidate in 181 mentioned the word
Keg data logger equipment, Port hole kegs and Detergent strength
sustainability as a policy matter and only a few made mention of
were a missing in many papers. Answers given for off line processes
the principles surrounding ISO or Process Control as a policy issue or
were typically limited in scope as candidates made reference to
requirement.
extractor servicing only, omitting the need for bacteria
sampling/analysis for soiling of the external washer for internal
Nb:- POLICY is generally defined :- A set of ideas or plan of what to do in
keg stoning and cleanliness inspection of a selection of the keg
particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people
population . Some candidates elected to answer with respect to the
or business organisation
keg manufacturing process only rather than the packaging process.

Examiners Report 2016 21

Question 4
i) Identify the impacts of using a CO2/N2 mixed gas solution in small
pack beer and the processes involved. [8]
ii) A beer keg, stored in a cellar at 10C, is pressurised by a mixed gas
of 70% vol/vol CO2: 30% vol/vol N2. If the top pressure of the
mixed gas in the keg is 1.29 bar gauge, calculate the equilibrium
concentration of CO2 in the beer (g l-1) on the assumption that the
hydrostatic effect of pressure on CO2 concentration of beer in the
keg can be neglected and the beer has the same density as water.
Data: [12]
Henrys Constant for CO2 at 10C is 116 x 103 kPa molefraction-1
Standard atmospheric pressure is 1.01 bar absolute
1bar = 105Pa
Density of water at 10C = 1000 kg m-3
Relative molecular weight of CO2 and H2O are 44 and 18
respectively
i) Invariably those attempting this question referred primarily to
the Widget and the positive benefits of on-site generation of
CO and N. However, the question seeks to call on a
candidates knowledge of CO and N gaseous characteristics,
their solubility and behaviour as mixed gases and the process
activities that take place e.g.
a) Processes which facilitate product - Carbonation &
Nitrogenation (Venturi/Sintered/Injection plate ).
b) The issues of maintaining gas/gases in solution
during small pack packaging.
c) The positive and negative benefits on quality and
shelf life.
ii) The inclusion of a calculation in Section A of this nature is a
departure from recent years. However, it was attempted
successfully by significant number of candidates. Fluid and
Thermodynamic questions demand a diagram to identify the
fundamental process boundary and conditions, yet this was a
missing on some papers. Where candidates were able to give an
explanation of the computation with [units] it enabled marks to
be awarded even if simple arithmetic errors occurred.
Therefore those scripts encountered with this approach were
marked accordingly and in preference to those papers
encountered with just a few lines of numbers and what
appears to be the correct answer!
Question 5
i) For a typical keg extractor, describe with the aid of
illustrations (based on the diagram design below) the routing
of the ports and the fluid flow conditions within the keg when
in the process of each of the following:- [12]
a) Cleaning.
b) Sterilising.
c) Filling.
d) Dispense.
ii) Illustrate the typical layout of an 800 keg per hour racking
line and identify the key items of equipment and a rated
design performance. [8]
i) Logically the question should prompt an initial
statement/diagram to indicate how a typical extractor provides
the means for fluid to enter or drain from the keg via the port
or tube. With the 4 conditions given, the expectation shall be to
simply repeat the diagram given, but illustrate the fluid flow
pattern and annotate prevailing conditions. Most candidates
were able to provide the flow pattern but a many were unable
to quantify the fluid flow conditions and or intermediate
process steps within the keg e.g. a) Cleaning - Detergent (acid
based) pulse via tube @3/3.5 barg to achieve turbulent flow >
2.4 [m/s] b) Sterilising- Hold to achieve /< 16000 PU generally at
125C).
22 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Statements such as Dilute, Fast, Less turbulent, Hot Stream
were not uncommon, however, meaningless. The significance to re-
orientate the illustrated keg for the process of dispense was not
recognised by ca 16 candidates whom attempted this question.
ii) Poor illustrative skills and a minimalist approach [Note potentially 8
Marks available] in providing design performance information plague
a number of candidates. Accomplished papers submitted a labelled
flow diagram with an annotated box for each item of
plant/equipment followed by a V diagram appropriately labelled
with rated design performance. One candidate only made reference
to the need to rate beer supply capacity as a function of keg size.
Question 6
i) The net positive suction head (NPSH) of a pump is related to the
process system operating conditions by the equation: [8]
=
Where:
Ps = suction pressure at pump inlet
Pvp = vapour pressure of liquid at temperature of pumping
= density of liquid
g = acceleration due to gravity
Describe possible pump operating problems the NPSH is specified to
avoid and suggest methods to overcome them.
ii) A centrifugal pump has an NPSH of 4 metres. It is used to transfer
hot wort from a kettle, open to atmospheric pressure, to a
whirlpool. If the temperature of the wort is taken as being at
100C, calculate the minimum vertical distance the pump must be
positioned below the outlet of the kettle to enable efficient pump
operation for the entire transfer. Include a diagram of the system.
[12]
Data:
Wort flowrate = 200 hl h-1
Vapour pressure of wort at 100C = 99 kPa
Wort density = 1065 kg m-3
Length of pipe from kettle to pump inlet = 8.5 m
Pipe internal diameter = 75 mm
Pipe friction factor = 0.002
Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m s-2
Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa
L 2
Darcys friction equation: Pf = 4f u
d
Where:
Pf = pressure loss in pipe due to friction
= pipe friction factor
L = pipe length
d = pipe diameter
u = wort flow velocity within the pipe
= wort density
This question was popular with 66% of the candidates answering it and
achieving average marks of 59.5%. Most candidates understood that the
main problem of poor specification is the generation of cavitation. Many
candidates indeed supplied an excellent description of the manner in
which cavitation damages the pump internals. Further marks could be
gained for identifying other problems such as noise and generally
inefficient operation. Most candidates were also able to score well with
measures to prevent cavitation such as lowering the pump relative to the
inlet vessel or increasing back pressure to the pump. There were many
excellent answers to the calculation part of the question. Impressively
many were able to write down and use equations that enabled fast
solutions to the problem rather than by first principles from Bernoulli that
the examiner was expecting. The minimum vertical distance came out as
3.94 metres.
Question 7
i) Draw the pressure-enthalpy diagram for steam and water. On the
diagram:- [6]
a) Identify the three phases.
b) Illustrate how latent heat transfer may be represented on the
diagram.
ii) Dry saturated steam at 3 bar gauge pressure is used to heat a CIP
detergent storage tank from cold via a plate heat exchanger. Using
the following data, calculate the mass of steam required:- [8]
Initial detergent temperature = 10C
Final detergent temperature = 80C
Detergent volume = 20 hl
Detergent density (assume constant) = 1020 kg m-3
Specific heat capacity of detergent = 4.13 kJ kg-1 K-1
Enthalpy of dry saturated steam at 3 bar gauge = 2738 kJ kg-1
Enthalpy of water at 3 bar gauge = 603 kJ kg-1
Efficiency of heat exchange system = 95%
iii) Draw a simple steam trap diagram design of your choice and write
short notes on its method of operation. List suitable points in a
steam system at which it is good practice to install steam traps. [6]
This was the most popular question, answered by 70% of the candidates
generating an average mark of 62.5%.
The pressure-enthalpy diagram was drawn adequately by most candidates
and the relevant three phases (water, wet steam, superheated steam)
identified. Also most understood that latent heat transfer is described by a
horizontal line in the wet steam area.
The calculation part was relatively straightforward. Common mistakes
were to fail to take into account the 95% efficiency correctly and also to
overlook the significance of the enthalpy of the steam condensate. The
energy lost by the steam is the difference between the steam enthalpy and
water enthalpy. The correct answer was 291 kg of steam.
The steam trap diagram was usually the poorest answered part of the
question. The examiner recommends that examinees should research
typical designs that would have enabled them to score higher. The
placement of the traps was better answered; many understood the need
for them on long pipe runs, at low points in the system or after major plant
items.
Question 8
i) With respect to materials of construction:-
a) Define the term stainless steel. [1]
b) Specify the main compositional difference between stainless
steel grades 304 and 316. [1]
c) Explain the difference and the significance of stainless steel
type 304L and 304. [2]
d) Explain the purpose of including titanium or niobium in some
grades of stainless steel. [2]
ii) It has been suggested that a fermentation vessel may be
constructed from mild steel lined with epoxy resin. Suggest
advantages and disadvantages of such a choice. [4]
iii) Draw simple illustrations labelled with the appropriate notes as to
the causes, appearance and prevention of:-
a) Pitting corrosion. [5]
b) Stress corrosion cracking. [5]
This question was answered by 59% of the candidates generating an
average mark of 54.0%. The stainless steel section was answered very
variably. This is somewhat disappointing given how fundamental stainless
steel is to modern brewery processing. Stainless steel is a low carbon steel
that comprises at least 9% chromium. Grade 316 comprises 2-3%
molybdenum. 304L is lower carbon than 304 and the main point is that is
therefore safer to weld. Titanium and niobium also increase weld security
and also enhance corrosion resistance.
Epoxy lined vessels have an advantage in lower capital investment
although there will be an increased ongoing cost because they will need
relining at intervals. If the epoxy lined vessel is operated suitably then
there may be advantages in cleanability and are also not vulnerable to
stress corrosion cracking.
The diagrams for pitting and stress corrosion cracking were variable, but
some examinees produced exemplary versions. In general most candidates
knew most of the important contributors to damaging corrosion, such as
high temperature, low oxygen and chloride ions. Pitting corrosion may be
difficult to observe, and stress corrosion cracking can be made worse from
mechanical stresses in process or from manufacture.
Question 9
i) Briefly describe, with the aid of illustrations as appropriate, the
physical principles upon which an electromagnetic flow meter
operates. [3]
ii) The following diagram illustrates a feedback control loop for control
of the temperature of mashing water at a set point of 65C:-
The controller may employ proportional (P), integral (I),
proportional-integral (PI) or proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
control. A step change increase occurs in the hot water feed to the
process. Draw a simple temperature time course diagram to show
the likely effect of the following:
a) The controlled variable of mashing water temperature if
proportional (P) only control is employed. [3]
b) The controlled variable of mashing water temperature if
integral (I) only control is employed. Identify a key
advantage and a key disadvantage compared to P
control. [4]
c) What is the advantage of employing correctly tuned PID
control over PI? [2]
iii) It is proposed to use a globe valve to control the flow of cold water.
Draw a diagram of a typical globe valve illustrating the mechanism
for opening and closing and the geometric shape of the valve. Why
is a globe valve a better choice for this application than a butterfly
valve? [8]
This question was the least popular being answered by 31% of the
candidates, however an average mark of 54.0% was obtained.
Electromagnetic flow meters were not well understood by the majority of
candidates. The examiner was looking for magnetic coils around the
circumference of the pipe wall and a consequent voltage generation that is
proportional to the flow of the conducting liquid.
Regarding the P, I and PID diagrams the examiner was impressed that
many candidates understood the potential for offset (P), the possibility of a
long delay in regaining set-point (I) and that PID will eliminate these
problems when correctly tuned.
The globe valve was understood by many candidates, but the examiner
was looking for elements in the diagram, such as the shape of the plug
and port that makes it excellent for accurate flow control. A butterfly valve
cannot control so accurately, essentially its main use is on off control of
flow.
Examiners Report 2016 23
Question 10
i) Explain with the aid of diagrams the significance of the following
mechanisms for heat loss from a hot water tank in a brewery:
a) Conduction. [3]
b) Natural convection. [3]
c) Radiation. [3]
ii) It is decided to insulate the hot water tank with a fibrous material.
a) With reference to the heat transfer mechanisms described
above, explain how such a material reduces heat losses. [3]
b) Explain why the effectiveness of the insulation is reduced if
the material becomes wet. [3]
iii) A brewery also employs insulation on cold process lines such as for
transfer of refrigerants. Explain why fibrous materials are not
satisfactory as insulation for this process. Suggest materials that
may be more suitable. [5]
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2016
Module 1 Materials and Fermentable Wort (Cereal)
There were 44 scripts submitted this year with 34 candidates (77%)
achieving a pass grade. This is higher than last year (75%) and with a
slightly higher average score of 53% (52% in 2015). It is encouraging that
there was 1 A grade and 9 B grade passes, although 47% of those who
passed did so with a basic D grade.The better candidates scored well in
both the essay and multiple choice questions, demonstrating a broad
knowledge of the whole syllabus, and it was clear that many had revised
not only from the notes, but from several sources. Disappointingly, the
average score of just 9.3 / 20 (47%) in the multiple choice section indicates
that many candidates had not taken the time to appreciate even the most
basic principles of non-cereal substrates, and this might account for the
higher number of D than C grades.
Thanks go to the candidates who presented their answers well by
following the structure of each question, drawing large and well labelled
diagrams, and using tables to display information efficiently. Those who
left the examiners to hunt for relevance in a sea of text and scrawled
diagrams ran the risk of losing marks.
Candidates seemed to score better in the questions where they could
perhaps draw from their own practical distilling experience, while
questions that required knowledge of peated malt production and lab
analysis generally returned poorer scripts. There is a lot to be said for
spending time in different of areas of our industry in order to gain an
understanding of these less populated, but essential functions. As always,
focussing only on certain sections of the syllabus and neglecting others is a
dangerous revision path towards mediocrity and disappointment. Happily,
those who had allowed themselves sufficient time to cover the whole
syllabus fared well with eighteen candidates achieving a passing grade in
each of their long answer questions.
Overall pass/fail rates and grades
Passed No %
A 1 2 excellent papers detailing not only short wets and long air rests, but also
B 9 21
C 8 18
D 16 36
E 6 13
F 2 5
G 2 5
24 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
This question was popular with 58% of the candidates answering it,
however the average mark was the lowest at 49%.
The examiner was disappointed with the number of candidates who did
not adequately grasp the meaning of conduction, convection and
radiation. The examiner was looking to see suitable explanations of the
actual physical mechanisms as the tank loses heat. Best answers included
equation descriptors such as the Fourier equation for conduction.
Insulating the vessel with a fibrous material greatly reduces conduction
because the air in the material is a poor conductor of heat. Also radiation
and convection are reduced because of the cooler outer surface. If the
material becomes wet then conduction increases because water is a better
conductor than air. Evaporation of the water may also aid fast heat
transfer.
Fibrous materials are not suitable for cold process because water will pass
through the material and condense on the process causing relatively rapid
heat transfer. This may also damage the insulation itself. Most candidates
identified foamed plastics of various types as a suitable material, although
there are others such as cork.
Analysis of questions that were answered and their corresponding pass
rates was illuminating.
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 38 28 74
2 24 19 79
3 30 16 53
4 41 26 63
5 35 26 74
6 36 31 86
7 11 6 55
Question 1
a) Define Germinative Energy and Germinative Capacity. Briefly
explain their importance in determining readiness of barley for
malting. [6]
b) Draw a diagram showing the key features of a steeping vessel. [8]
c) Give an example of a typical steeping regime for a batch of water
sensitive barley, and provide reasons for this regime. [6]
This was the second most popular question with the joint third highest
pass rate of 74% and the second highest average score of 11.7 / 20 (59%),
and afforded some excellent answers. Most candidates understood GC
and GE, and their relevance to dormancy with top answers giving
reasonable percentages for each. However, while most correctly gave the
4ml test in determining GE, a surprisingly high number of candidates
confused the GC (peroxide) test with the water sensitivity (8ml) test. The
standard of diagrams varied widely. While the best answers dedicated at
least half a page to a well-drawn steeping vessel, including all of the
common features, many candidates lost points on the poor quality of their
diagrams and lack of detail. It was encouraging to see how many
candidates understood how to process water sensitive barley with
the need to remove oxygen-depleting micro-organisms and minerals,
reasonable temperatures, timings, and target moistures.
Question 2
Discuss the use of exogenous enzymes for grain spirit production.
Include in your answer their roles, optimal conditions, and benefits. [20]
While this was the second least popular question, it returned the highest
average score of 12.4 / 20 (62%) and the second highest pass rate of 79%.
Most candidates discussed the appropriate use of exogenous enzymes and
listed those most commonly used. Good answers gave a detailed account
of the biochemical action of each enzyme, reasonable temperature and pH
ranges, and the advantages over using malted barley. However, some
potentially good answers were let down by neglecting to mention benefits
such as increased yield, efficiency, and ease of processing, and several
candidates mistakenly said that B-amylase was a de-branching enzyme,
perhaps confusing it with pullulanase. One candidate discussed the
application of erogenous enzymes, which, while entertaining, rather
disappointingly did not quite hit the spot!
Question 3
a) Draw a labelled diagram showing the key features of a kiln used to
process peated malt. [6]
b) Describe the process of producing peated malt. [6]
c) List and explain the differences between specifications for a heavily
peated and non-peated malted barley for the production of malt
whisky. [8]
This was the second least popular question, and generally featured
towards the end of the answer books. Not surprisingly then, only 53% of
candidates who attempted this passed, and with the lowest average score
of just 8.6 / 20 (43%), an E grade fail. While there were some well-drawn
diagrams, which included suitably positioned peat fires, flame arresters,
sulphur pots, and direction of air and reak flows, many lacked even simple
features such as loading and stripping gear, heat exchangers, and fans, and
further marks were lost by those who focused solely on the peat fire,
neglecting the rest of the kiln design.
It was hoped that the processing part of the question would include
reasonable moistures during peating, withering, breakpoint, and curing, air
on and off temperatures (with reasons), timings, removal of malt culms,
management of the peat burn, including flame-suppression, optimising
reak, sourcing and storing peat, controlling NDMA with the use of sulphur,
and loss of extract through extended germination. It was not necessary to
mention all of the above in order to achieve the six marks, but even so,
many candidates struggled to score above half marks for this part of the
question. Some answered the final part of the question well by listing
pertinent parameters with reasonable specifications, backed up with
reasons for the differences. Most recognised the need for a phenol spec,
and gave reasonable targets and ranges. It is probably worth pointing out
that while colorimetric analysis has been the industry norm, HPLC is now in
common use, so points were available for acknowledging this and the
importance of setting values to achieve the desired sensory quality in the
spirit. As the question asked to list and explain the differences, no points
were awarded where the specs were the same for peated and non-peated
malts as there was sufficient choice of parameters to warrant eight points
of difference, including at least, PSY, FE, fermentability, pH, NDMA, and
SO2.
Question 4
a) Compare and contrast the use of a traditional mash tun relative to a
lauter tun with particular reference to wort quality and operational
efficiency. [12]
b) For one of these mashing systems, give an example of a typical
regime suited to producing wort in a malt distillery. [8]
This was the most popular question, answered by 93% of candidates. 63%
passed with an average score of 9.7 / 20 (49%). Good answers considered
grist quality, bed depth, run-off and extraction efficiencies, enzyme
activity, use of rakes or paddle mixer, wort clarity and resultant spirit
character, draff removal, cleaning, impact on fermentation time, capital
costs, water efficiency, and ease of operation.
Mashing regimes that considered milling and safety features, reasonable
water applications, temperatures, and timings, water to grist ratios, use of
rakes or paddle mixer, control of run-off, draff removal, and cleaning
scored well. Some marks were lost by candidates who simply listed
features without comparing different mashing types.
Question 5
Describe the processing of un-malted cereal in a grain distillery, from
intake to mashing-in of cooked cereal. Include all the Process Control
and Health and Safety measures. [20]
This question was answered by 80% of candidates with a pass rate of 74%
and an average score of 10.7 / 20 (54%). Most candidates scored well in
describing intake procedures, and many achieved close to full marks
detailing visual inspection, weighing, separation, screening, and lab tests.
Milling was also generally well described, especially with respect to health
and safety. Stones, metal, and dust removal, and explosion suppression
systems and vents featured in better answers with many mentioning
DSEAR or other regulatory considerations and respiratory care. Better
answers detailed grist requirements for cooking, and increased efficiency
using a hammer mill in favour of processing whole grains. However, a
surprisingly high number of candidates omitted cooking or mashing
altogether in their answers, thereby giving excellent half-answers, and
achieving only a basic pass. Those who did detail cooking and mashing
generally did quite well, giving reasonable temperatures, pressures and
timings, hygiene comparisons in batch and continuous systems, purging
oxygen and pressurising with steam, stirrers for even cooking and careful
blow-down practice. Safety features were generally well described too,
and some marks were available to those who mentioned heat recovery
potential and liquid viscosity issues.
Question 6
a) Summarise the typical water quality parameters for distillery water
sources, and give examples of water treatments that can be used to
achieve the required standard. [12]
b) Describe ways to optimise and reduce a distillery's water usage. [8]
Answered by 82% of candidates, this question saw the highest pass rate of
86% and a fairly respectable average score of 11.7 / 20 (58%). For the first
part of the question, those who accurately detailed typical chemical and
microbiological content of different source waters, including bore hole,
public supply, and surface waters, and the treatments currently available
to meet the varying requirements of all distillery processes fared well.
Good answers included treatments such as sand, carbon, ion-exchange
columns, and membrane filtration with top scorers also mentioning Birm
filters and sterilisation of light and heavy microbial loads, and described
the benefits of these treatments. There were some very good answers in
the second part of the question too, with the top scorers including, at
least, careful monitoring of usage to limit excess draining or flushing,
reclaiming cooling, steam condensate, and CIP waters, working to a higher
gravity, checking for leaks, restrictors on hoses, cooling towers, addition of
back set, and operator training.
Question 7
Describe in detail a method for predicting distillery spirit yield using
laboratory analysis for both: [20]
a) a malted cereal and
b) an un-malted cereal.
This was by far the least popular question with only 25% of candidates
attempting it, its lack of appeal being reflected in a pass rate of just 55%
and an average score of 9.3 / 20 (47%). However, this is an improvement
on a similar question set in 2013 where the pass rate was only 42%. While
answers that included accurate detail of industry standard methods scored
highly, points were awarded for any method that could reasonably predict
spirit yield. Top marks included formulae and calculations.
Examiners Report 2016 25
Module 1 Materials and Fermentable Wort (Molasses) Question 5

This year three candidates sat this paper. This is the lowest number for
some years. The level of knowledge of the candidates was sufficient for all
to achieve a pass at diploma level. The average mark was 71%.
In summary 2 grade A, 1 grade C.
Multiple Choice Section
This section had a wide range of marks. The highest mark was 16 and the
lowest 8. The questions are set at standard grade and candidates need to
show this level of knowledge of Cereal and Grape. The highest scores were
gained when candidates did well in both the grape and cereal sections.
Due to the low number of candidates detail on performance for individual
questions has not been included.
a) List the analytical specification and typical ranges to include in a
sugar cane molasses purchasing contract. [8]
b) For three of the specifications explain in detail an analytical method
used to measure the parameter. [12]
The first part of this question was answered well. Candidates listed the
specification, average and range to include in a specification. All also
included the units of measurement.
The second part clearly from the question and allocation of 4 marks per
method required a level of detail that was absent from most answers. The
mention of HPLC for example without sample preparation steps did not get
all the marks on offer.

Question 1 Question 6

Discuss the climatic conditions, cultivation techniques and ergonomic
requirements to produce sugar cane and sugar beet from planting to
harvest. [20]
This question was straight forward and answered well. Good answers
required to provide detail on soil conditions and cultivation techniques. No
marks were gained and time wasted if information on cane/beet
preparation after harvest was included in the answer.
Question 2
In relation to the selection of yeast for a light and a dark rum discuss the
following factors: the source, method of propagation, strain and pitching
regime. [20]
The question required the candidate to discuss several factors and marks
were gained by including detail of method of propagation not just the
source. Full marks required some knowledge of different strains available
and how each was pitched. Marks were lost when the selection was not
coupled to type of rum being produced.
Question 3
Discuss the basic concepts, applied to the interpretation of analytical
data in a distillery, of the following
Sampling error [5]
Accuracy and precision [5]
Repeatability (r) [5]
Reproducibility (R) [5]
Discuss three different types of microbial contamination found in sugar
cane molasses. For each indicate the cause and the impact on the spirit
production from molasses. Describe the control measures that can
influence spirit quality by reducing or increasing these levels of
contamination. [20]
This question was answered well and detailed information on the type and
cause were included. The best answers included control measures that
explained how the contamination was controlled and how this could be
used to both positively and negatively influence spirit quality.
Question 7
a) With the aid of a labelled diagram show the key steps in producing
molasses from sugar cane. [12]
b) Discuss differences in the process, molasses yield and suitability for
potable alcohol production if sugar cane is substituted with sugar
beet. [8]
The first part required candidates to replicate the molasses production
flowchart. To achieve full marks the diagram of the process needed to
include how all types of molasses are produced from sugar cane.
The second part was well answered by those who read the question. The
question was not asking the difference in how both are cultivated.

This type of question has been asked regularly and the syllabus structure
gives a high level of certainty that a question on laboratory / statistical
analysis will appear. This statement also appeared in last years examiners
report and candidates had prepared for this type of question. The answers
were of a high standard and full marks were available to any candidate
who included an example of how the technique would be used.

Question 4

Discuss the different stages of pre-treatment of sugar cane derived

molasses required by a distiller. Include in the quality of not carrying out
each stage. [20]

This question seemed to catch candidates out as most gave a description

of how molasses was made rather than the pre-treatment of sugar cane
derived molasses. This did not cost them marks but did waste time. The
impact of not doing pre-treatment was well answered but in most cases
the impact on final spirit was not included.

26 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Module 2 Fermentation, Distillation and Maturation
This year, 54 candidates sat the distilling diploma module 2 paper. The
average score was 57. 11 candidates gained an A or B grade, 29 a C or D
grade and 7 a E or F grade. It was clear from the answers that several
candidates did not answer the question but just downloaded knowledge
about the general subject. This prevented them gaining marks and must
have resulted in a waste of valuable time.
Overall pass/fail rates and grades
Grade Number of candidates % of total
Some candidates again did not read the question and gave detail on how
pyruvate then is used to produce Ethanol. Part b had a mixed quality of
answer. Some candidates gave detail on aerobic conditions , again not asked
in the question. Others gave only superficial comments on the role of ATP
and did not include an explanation of the importance of the pathway.
Question 3
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using yeast supplied in liquid,
cake (compressed) and dried form. Include in the answer a discussion on
handling and storage requirements for each type. [20]

(Pass) A 1 2 This question was attempted by 43 candidates with an average score of 12.9.
This question was well answered and is reflected in the higher average score.
B 10 19
The best answers included comment on the ease of handling and any health
C 19 35 and safety aspects of handling each type. They also included a brief
discussion on the financial impact on delivery cost of each type. Candidates
D 17 31 lost marks by concentrating on one or two types and not covering the three
(Fail) E 6 12 types mentioned in the question.

F 1 2 Question 4
G 0 0
Describe the key components and steps required to operate a cleaning-in-
place (CIP) regime to minimise the level of spoilage organisms for storage
Performance by question and transfer of liquid yeast and for a fermentation vessel. [20]
Question Answered by Passed by Pass rate %
Attempted by 33 candidates and had an average score of 11.4. The
components of a CIP system were included in most answers and those
1 43 30 70 providing a diagram that was clearly labelled used time wisely. However
2 33 24 73 marks were lost by not clearly showing the differences in a CIP system used
to clean both parts of the process. Additional marks were awarded for
3 43 36 84 commenting on the difficulty / ease of cleaning of different materials of
construction. Some answers used only steam to clean the fermentation
4 33 21 64
vessel. This is acceptable but the question still required detail on how the
5 43 18 42 steam would be used and also any rinsing required before steaming along
with how the vessel is cooled prior to refilling.
6 34 21 62
7 48 38 79 Question 5

8 47 30 64 Discuss the implications of reducing the spirits/feints (tails) cut point of a

batch (pot) spirit distillation from 70% to 60% ABV. Include the effects of
Question 1 this action on the congeners in the spirit, giving named examples. [20]

With the aid of a diagram, describe the structure and function of the
principal components of a budding yeast cell. [20]
This question was answered by 43 candidates. The average score was 11.5.
Almost all candidates provided a diagram though marks were needlessly
lost by some who did not show a budding yeast cell. The highest marks
were gained by giving an indication of the shape and relative size of the
internal structure. Most marks were lost by not providing clarity over the
structures function. The allocation of 20 marks should have alerted
candidates to the need to provide at least 8 structures. Some gave a
description of how yeast replicates which was not asked in the question
and though this did not lose marks did waste time.
43 candidates attempted this question. The average mark gained was 9.1.
this was the poorest answered question. As this question reflects a practical
aspect of operation I was surprised at the lack of basic knowledge reflected
in the answers. Most candidates used a diagram to show the distribution of
compounds in the distillate over time. Most answers also included the asked
for named compounds. A good explanation of how relative volatility
influences this pattern was aslo provided. Despite the low average some
candidates gained high marks. These answers gave detail on the impact on
volume, ethanol strength and quality of all three cuts. Additional marks were
gained by discussing the longer term effect on the different groups of
compounds after repeat distillations. The best answers also mentioned the
increased spirit bulk requiring transportation if filled into cask off site.

Question 2

Describe the steps of the glycolysis/Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas (EMP)

metabolic pathway to convert glucose to pyruvate inside a yeast cell.
[10]
Explain the importance of the EMP pathway in generating ATP for cell
metabolic activities under anaerobic conditions. [10]

This question was attempted by 33 candidates. The average mark was

11.1. The low score was disappointing as this question is straight out of
any yeast metabolism text book. Part a was well answered with most
answers including a good representation of the pathway. Care should be
taken when abbreviations are used that some indication of what the
abbreviation stands for is included.

Examiners Report 2016 27

Question 6 Question 8

a) Discuss the impact on congener distribution and spirit quality when a) Describe the laboratory facilities required to conduct organoleptic
a rectifying column is increased from 30 to 40 plates. [10] (nosing) tests on spirit. [10]
b) Discuss how a distiller can remove isoamyl alcohol from a rectifying b) Discuss the use of both difference and descriptive tests in
column, and describe the impact on product quality and still evaluating spirit quality. [10]
operation. [10]
This question was also popular with 47 candidates answering it. The
34 candidates attempted this question. The average mark gained was 11.1. average score was 10.5. This is a disappointing level as the 10 marks on
Part a required a knowledge of the distribution of ethanol and other offer in part a should have been easy to gain. A list of equipment and a
compounds within a column still. Then discussing the impact of providing brief comment on why it is required was all that was needed to gain the
more plates and reflux potential. Good answers included changes in marks. Marks could be gained for including the environment such as a
ethanol strength within the column, the change in relative solubility quiet, clean, well light room or for describing different sample glass types
because of this and the impact on quality. Several candidates only or keeping different sets of glassware for different products. Part b when
discussed a coffey still but for full marks all distillation types should be answered, it looked like some candidates ran out of time to answer fully,
mentioned and the greater potential to remove the separated higher did not give the level of detail required to gain the 10 marks on offer. The
alcohols more easily via a side stream. Part b answers mostly contained question also required a discussion on the merit of each test not just a
an acceptable diagram of a removal system. Marks were lost by not giving statement on what both tests are.
detail on the operational aspects of the system. Care should also be taken
that if mentioning a legal limit of ethanol in the final product this needs
to include the regulations requiring the limit. The impact of not removing
all of the isoamyl alcohol was poorly answered.as most did mention
increased levels in the product but not the blocking impact isoamyl has
on distillation ability if allowed to go very high.
Question 7
a) Describe the main reactions that take place between spirit and the
internal surface of an oak cask. [12]
b) Discuss and compare the impact on these reactions using a new
cask and a cask that has been repeatedly refilled. [8]

The question was attempted by 48 candidates, the highest take up rate.

The average score of 12.9 showed a good understanding of this topic.
Candidates provided both the main groups of reactions along with named
examples in part a along with an explanation of various methods of
influencing the flavour through different mechanisms. Some answers
included the process of making a cask , which if used to show the impact
on potential flavour was useful. However several candidates did not make
any link and therefore lost marks. The answers for part b required a
discussion on how the mechanisms / reactions in part a were effected
with repeated fillings. This was either missed or mixed up with the answer
to part a. I was able to pull out the answers but candidates should
answer the 2 parts seperatly.

Module 3 Process Technology Analysis of questions which were answered and the corresponding pass
rate was interesting. Question 8 was answered by all of the candidates
General comments and overview with 55.5% passing. Question 3 was answered by 20 candidates and had a
pass mark of 75%. Conversely Q1 was also answered by a high number of
In all there were 29 submitted scripts with 19 candidates achieving a pass candidates (26) but only 30.8% passed. This might not be noteworthy in
grade to give a pass rate of 65%. This is higher than last year (60.9%) and itself but the fact that Q1 is related to continuous distillation, means my
but lower than the 75% who passed in 2014. There was only 1 A pass but 4 old concern that many candidates are not seriously covering the entire
B passes. The D (pass) and E (fail) grade boundary accounted for 45% of syllabus remains.
the candidates with 24% (D) and 21% (E).
Performance by question
Overall pass/fail rates and grades
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
Grade Number of candidates % of total 1 26 8 31
2 27 19 70
(Pass) A 1 3
3 20 15 75
B 4 14 4 20 5 25
C 7 24 5 14 7 50
6 9 3 33
D 7 24
7 28 10 36
(Fail) E 6 21 8 19 16 55
F 2 7
G 2 7

28 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Question 1
a) With appropriate diagrams and graphs explain separation and
concentration of ethanol in a twin column continuous distillation
system. [12]
b) Explain the key design features of plates used in the above system.
[8]
Part I - A good answer would include:
1) A diagram and brief explanation of a Coffey still or similar
system
2) The dewpoint diagram explaining enrichment and partial
pressures
3) The McCabe Thiele diagram explaining theoretical plates
4) The congener distribution across the plates in the
rectifier/product column
The best answers would also cover mass balance theory and reflux ratio
calculations.
Part 2 - I expected an explanation of the purpose of perforated plates,
weirs, downcomers and pressure relief valves. Also something on heat
transfer especially if coils were present in the illustration.
Marks were also given for discussion of bubble caps, slots and disc and
donut alternatives to simple perforations. Discussions on wash depth,
solids versus feints liquids situations, pressurisation of plates, entrainment
due to excess vapour velocity and weeping/dumping due to inadequate
vapour pressure were all rewarded.
Materials of construction and the distance between plates were also valid.
I had hoped there might be some mention of the importance of designing
the correct total area of free total orifice per plate but no one did so.
A wide variety of quality of answers but some only gave theory or
operational explanations but not both.
Question 2
Draw a diagram showing the main features of a batch (pot) still and
condenser. Explain, with reference to the diagram, the significance of :-
a) the design,
b) the rate of distillation,
on the character and quality of the spirit produced. [20]
A diagram of a pot still was requested- as straightforward as it can get. For
high marks I expected a good deal of detail. Some poor results were
sketchy in contact and miniaturised!
Names of parts of still (lye arm, swan neck, ogee, shoulders, body etc.)
features (valves, hatches) instrumentation (temperature , pressure) safety
features (seal pot or pressure relief/anti vacuum valve) and also similar
details of a condenser or worm tub arrangement. Also direct or one of
several indirect heating arrangements. Many lost easy points by omitting
obvious items.
Then a two parter related to character and quality of spirit. Some answers
could have been better focussed on this point. For design I expected
discussion on physical aspects of stills including material of construction
(usually copper but stainless steel also possible in places), size, height,
shape (including ball, lantern etc.) with particular relation to reflux and
chemical interactions. The impact of differing lye arm angles, different
condensing arrangements and the presence or not of a purifier or other
reflux increasing methodology (eg Lomond head)
With rate I expected the outcome of both increasing and reducing that
factor. Reducing rate increases effective copper contact and increases
reflux producing lighter spirit. Increasing the rate obviously does the
opposite.
Also, extreme rate increase could lead to entrainment and result in an
impact on spirit quality. I had not specified a wash or spirit pot still but
most referred to what they were giving as an example.
Question 3
With respect to packaging materials for bottled spirits:-
a) Briefly define the function of and associated materials used for each
of the following:-
i) Primary packaging.
ii) Secondary packaging.
iii) Tertiary packaging.
b) Outline the significance and purpose of bottle specifications to
ensure packaging quality and compliance.
c) Identify the issues and any requirements to be considered when
preparing a company policy for the minimisation of waste and
environmental impact and include any guiding principles.
A very straightforward question and generally well answered.
a) Primary packaging is that in contact with the product i.e bottles
(and caps) which some missed out) and also the label (in my
opinion) which tells the customer about the contents. Some
discussion on maintaining product integrity was expected as
well as mentioning glass, PET etc. Secondary packaging is
cartons and cases, still likely to be seen by the consumer which
protects the primary. Tertiary packaging is pallets and shrink
wrap to protect accumulated cases but totally functional and
not expected to be seen by the end consumer.
b) Bottle specifications was an opportunity to talk both about
what they might be (eg size, shape, weight, colour, cleanliness
etc.) but also their importance for efficient line running by
minimising stoppages and also satisfying excise authorities. The
best answers went into detail on specific bottle defects such as
faulty tops or inclusion of stray ceramic particles.
c) This was meant to start off at a strategic level formulating
policy which needs to take on board relevant legislation and
regulations as well as individual company aspirations.
Compliance has to be the prime consideration. Cost reduction
and customer perception of packaging changes are also valid
but to a lesser degree. Reduce/recycle/re-use is a valid
methodology. Several alluded to zero landfill targets and also to
the need to get employees on board and to have the
requisite recycling bins well located. A valid point was made
that excessive weight reduction of bottles can backfire through
line stoppages and breakages. Whilst an allusion to Mogden
was acceptable, a few candidates waxed on about distillery
effluent issues which the initial sentence wrt packaging etc.
made clear was irrelevant.
Question 4
a) Discuss the use of stainless steel as a material of construction in a
distillery. Give examples of different grades, trace elements and
potential corrosion issues. [8]
b) Draw a system diagram for a centrifugal pump that has a NPSH of 4
metres.It is used to pump pot ale from a wash still to a pot ale tank.
If the pot ale is taken as being at 100C calculate the minimum
vertical distance that the pump must be below the outlet at the
base of the still to enable efficient pump operation for the entire
transfer. The still is open to atmosphere. [12]
Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa
Pot ale flowrate = 200 hl h-1
Pot ale density = 1000 kg m-3
Length of pipe from still to pump inlet = 8.5 m
Pipe internal diameter = 75 mm
Friction factor f = 0.002
Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m s-2
Vapour pressure of pot ale at 100C = 99 kPa
a) Discuss the use of stainless steel is not the same as make a list
which several candidates did. A little more comparison with alternatives
would have been acceptable though most covered the benefits of
corrosion resistance, strength, hygiene, etc. Different types, especially
austenitic etc. were generally well described and the trace elements of
carbon, chromium etc. seemed well understood. Problems such as pitting
and stress corrosion were well explained in the better answers.
Examiners Report 2016 29
b) This was the element of the paper which caused most difficulty.
Many of the diagrams were poor and the correct answer to the equation
eluded all, though some were close, and the correct approach, stages and
partially finished answers were rewarded. From the flowrate and pipe
dimensions the liquid velocity can be calculated.
Rauls theory can then be used to calculate the pressure element involving
friction which, together with the atmospheric and vapour pressure gives
the minor component (approx 0.35 which should be deducted from the
NPSH giving a minimum height difference of 3.65m for cavitation to be
avoided.
Alternatively, Bernoullis equation can be applied.
Question 5
a) Draw the pressure-enthalpy diagram for steam and water. On the
diagram:- [6]
i) Identify the three phases.
ii) Illustrate how latent heat transfer may be represented on the
diagram.
b) Dry saturated steam at 3 bar gauge pressure is used to heat a CIP
detergent storage tank from cold via a plate heat exchanger. Using
the following data, calculate the mass of steam required:- [8]
Initial detergent temperature = 10C
Final detergent temperature = 80C
Detergent volume = 20 hl
Detergent density (assume constant) = 1020 kg.m-3
Specific heat of detergent = 4.13 kJ kg-1K-1
Enthalpy of dry saturated steam at 3 bar gauge = 2738 kJ kg-1
Enthalpy of water at 3 bar gauge = 603 kJ kg-1
Efficiency of heat exchange system = 95%
c) Draw a simple steam trap diagram design of your choice and write
short notes as to its method of operation. Also suggest suitable
points in steam systems at which it is good practice to install steam
traps. [6]
The second least attempted question: most drew acceptable pressure:
enthalpy diagrams and correctly identified the three phases in part a). The
calculation in part b was found to be straightforward by most and the 95%
efficiency element was generally applied correctly. Part c)s answers
suggested many were not altogether familiar with the internal details of
steam traps but most appreciated the need to position them on long pipe
runs, before and after pressure reduction valves , before key equipment
and where temperature differences occur such as at walls.
Question 6
a) Briefly describe, with the aid of illustrations as appropriate, the
physical principles upon which an electromagnetic flow meter
operates. [3]
b) The following diagram illustrates a feedback control loop for control
of the temperature of mashing water at a set point of 65C:-
The controller may employ proportional (P), integral (I), proportional-
integral (PI) or proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control.
A step change increase occurs in the hot water feed to the process. Draw
a simple temperature time course diagram to show the likely effect of
the following:
30 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
i) The controlled variable of mashing water temperature if
proportional (P) only control is employed. [3]
ii) The controlled variable of mashing water temperature if integral
(I) only control is employed. Identify a key advantage and a key
disadvantage compared to P control. [4]
iii) What is the advantage of employing correctly tuned PID control
over PI? [2]
c) It is proposed to use a globe valve to control the flow of cold water.
Draw a typical globe valve illustrating the mechanism for opening
and closing and the geometric shape of the valve. Why is a globe
valve a better choice for this application than a butterfly valve?
The least attempted question provided one text book answer and several
others of varying quality.
a) Most knew that an EFM relied on the induced magnetic field
and the conductance of the fluid therein.
b) Varying levels of familiarity with PID control issues (speed,
fluctuation, returning to set point) were demonstrated.
c) Varying standards of globe valve illustration were drawn and
the key point about better consistency of control than the
butterfly valve was explained by most candidates.
Question 7
a) Explain, with the aid of diagrams and equations as appropriate, the
significance of the following mechanisms for heat loss from a hot
liquor tank in a distillery:-
i) Conduction. [3]
ii) Natural convection. [3]
iii) Radiation. [3]
b) It is decided to insulate the hot liquor tank with a fibrous material.
i) With reference to the heat transfer mechanisms described
above explain how such a material reduces heat losses. [3]
ii) Explain why the effectiveness of the insulation is reduced if
the material becomes wet. [3]
c) A bottling hall employs insulation on cold process lines such as for
transfer of refrigerants. Explain why fibrous materials are not
satisfactory as insulation for this process. Suggest materials that
may be more suitable. [5]
a) Most candidates gave sound explanations of conduction, convection
and radiation, with supporting equations, but a few lost marks by omitting
to provide any diagrams.
b) Generally well answered on the mechanisms of insulation (stopping
convection, reducing conduction, discouraging radiation) and also how
conduction increases in wet conditions.
c) Generally well answered explaining how condensation will lead to icing
and the need for foam (closed bubble) type insulation and vapour barrier.
Question 8
a) Discuss options for energy recovery or re-use in a batch/malt
whisky distillery which has no on-site co-products recovery.
b) Condensate at 98oC, weighing 7150 kg, is used to raise 11000 kg of
warm water from 30oC to 65oC in a counter-current plate heat
exchanger. What is the exit temperature of the condensate?
c) How many heat exchanger plates of area 0.9 m-2 are required to
carry out the above operation in 45 minutes?
Assume ideal conditions and that both condensate and water have
specific heat
4.18 kJ.kg-1K-1
Overall heat transfer coefficient of plates = 800 W.m-2K-1
a) A wide range of options to answer on and a wide range of standards of
answers. The most obvious (and too obvious for some) were re-use of
worts cooling water and heat transfer between ingoing wash and low
wines and exiting pot ale and spent lees. Others included, as I had
expected, an explanation of Thermal Vapour Recompression. Some went
on to suggest Anaerobic Digestion which wasnt exactly what I had
envisaged but I decided it was valid and awarded marks accordingly.
The most obvious (and too obvious for some) were re-use of worts cooling
water and heat transfer between ingoing wash and low wines and exiting
pot ale and spent lees. Others included, as I had expected, an explanation
of Thermal Vapour Recompression. Some went on to suggest Anaerobic
Digestion which wasnt exactly what I had envisaged but I decided it was
valid and awarded marks accordingly.
Some candidates failed to note the word batch in the question and lost
marks by giving answers which alluded to continuous distillation.
DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING EXAMINATION
This year saw the introduction of the newly consolidated single 3 hour
exam per Module, in line with the other Diploma examinations. The
change appears to have gone smoothly, with no significant effect on the
overall Module results when compared with previous years. The only
common theme throughout all three Modules was that candidates now
need to be more aware of their requirement to manage their time
appropriately across the full 3 hours as a number of candidates only
answered three out of four of the long answer questions and appeared to
be running out of time. Whist in previous years we have seen reasonable
participation levels from first enrolment and initial assignment through to
the examination, there were a significant level of candidate withdrawals
throughout the year caused by specific individual company and market
circumstances therefore this is not seen as a cause for concern for future
years.
Module 1:
General comments and overview
Whilst 62 candidates started the exam year this year, only 46 completed
the full module assignment submissions and examination. The majority of
candidates use Module One as the entry point to the Diploma in Packaging
Exams each year, and often a significant proportion come from having
previously sat the General Certificate examinations. As a result, the overall
scores for the Short Answer section were generally better with the average
scores on this section being above the pass mark threshold, but often the
weaker areas are seen on the assignment and on the long answer
questions. As a result, the Examiners would recommend that candidates
are also given help to prepare for the longer written answer questions
which are part of this examination structure.
Overall pass/fail rates and grades
Passed No % the in-house elements of production which meant that the average score
Grade
A 0 0
B 2 4 The final section was designed to allow the candidate to explain how the
C 14 30
D 14 30
Failed 16 35
Total 46
Unit 1 Packaging Theory and Materials
Assignment
This assignment is designed to show that you understand the past, present
and future manufacturing processes, specifications and development
options available for a primary packaging material.
Selecting a primary packaging material of your choice, review the current
specification of this material and explain the key changes and
developments in this specification during the last 10 years. [5]
b) A straight forward calculation which most candidates completed
correctly, at just over 44C. Some however had results lower than the
water inlet temperature which a cursory reality check would have revealed
this as impossible.
c) This question required the calculation of the log mean temperature
difference (the LMTD) although some used a simple average which is
insufficiently accurate in this case. Applying the T lmtd of 22 C to the
equation Q+uAT and dividing that into the total heat transferred resulted
in a correct answer of 38 plates required.
Discuss the appropriateness of the current specification of your chosen
material in line with both the performance of your production facility
and the economic environment of your country. [10]
Discuss the options available to further enhance the material in the
future and the potential benefits and risks that these would bring both to
your line and the overall business performance. [5]
Assignment Performance
Grade No %
A 1 2
B 5 8
C 16 26
D 20 32
E 10 16
F 4 6
G 6 10
62 candidates submitted assignments for this unit.The first section of this
assignment was designed to allow a candidate to investigate the
developments of packaging materials over the last decade. This section
was generally well answered with most candidates selecting a material and
describing the changes which has been seen with the most often
examples being bottle light-weighting and the reduction in can
specifications and the change from 206 to 202 ends.
For the second section candidates needed to explain how the specification
was adjusted to reflect the operations within their country with the
stronger answers looking at the in-country market specifics, including the
economic situation, competitor environment, cost base and impact on line
performance and output. However, a number of answers looked only at
for this section was often less than half of the marks actually available.
material could be further developed or optimised in order to improve both
line and business performance. Again the majority of candidates focused
only on the impact on line performance, which meant limited answers had
any associated business financials connected to their answer.
Short Answer Section
46 candidates sat the exam paper
The scores within this section ranged from 1 to 14, with 78% of candidates
scoring greater than 50%. Overall this section was reasonably answered
with the average score for the unit being 57%. However candidates
demonstrated a significant lack of knowledge on the manufacturing
process for materials especially cans, paperboard and cardboard.
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 28 21 75%
2 16 8 50%
Two candidates failed to submit any answer in this section.
Examiners Report 2016 31
Question 1 Unit 2 Beer Preparation

Using a table, explain the functions and basic properties of primary,
secondary and tertiary materials and list three examples of each type of
materials. [9]
Selecting one material from each of the three groups above, explain the
specific storage requirements for each of the materials to ensure they are
kept in the best possible readiness for use on the production line. [6]
Using a glass bottle as the example material, explain the various on-line
quality production checks which are undertaken to verify that the
material being used is within specification, including where these checks
are carried out on the line and their frequency. [10]
This question was designed to test the candidates knowledge and
understanding of the functions and properties of the different materials
used within the packaging area as well as how these are validated within
the production line and also how they should be stored.
The first part of the question was generally well answered with most
candidates providing a clear table and example of the materials. This
structure helped to provide the better candidates with a clear basis to
work through the later sections of the question.
Assignment
This assignment is designed for you to demonstrate knowledge of your
sites beer filtration process. If your site does not have a filtration process
area you will need to organise attendance at an appropriate location.
With the aid of clearly labelled diagrams and/or photographs describe
the filtration process at your site. Your submission should identify and
explain the importance of all points in the process from beer leaving
conditioning tank through to filled bright beer tank. [6]
Describe in detail what process and/or product parameters that need to
be controlled during the filtration process to maintain beer quality.
Explain why these are important to the final product and consumer
experience. [8]
Provide two suggestions for how the filtration operation at your site can
be improved by considering cost, quality, safety, environmental or
efficiency factors, and provide a justification of your recommendations.
[6]
Assignment Performance

For the second part of the question candidates needed to explain the Grade No %
different storage requirements for the three chosen materials. Half of the
candidates struggled with this part of the question with storage details A 16 25
provided being very limited. Details should have included storage B 14 22
locations, hygiene, temperatures and humidity conditions.
C 16 25
The final section was very poorly answered with the average score in this D 12 18.8
section being only one third of the available marks. Good answers walked
through the bottling line and explained which checks were undertaken at E 1 1.5
each machine, what standards were used as the baseline comparison for F 2 3
the check and the including the frequency of these being undertaken.
G 3 4.7
Question 2
The majority of candidates answered the assignment to a high level. Better
Describe the technical and marketing functions of packaging materials. answers included labelled pictures/diagrams/SCADA images for section 1
[10] and explained each stage of the process. Section two needed to link the
listed product parameters to consumer experience to get full marks and
Explain how the marketing functions will differ between small pack and also provide specification examples. Finally, the better candidates in
large pack. [5] section three provided a clear justification of both given suggestions.
Using a two piece can as the example, explain the various on-line Short Answer Section
production checks which are undertaken to ensure that all of the
technical functions of the can have been met during the packaging This section of the examination paper focused on determining the
operation, including where these are carried out on the line and their candidates breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter, and excluded
frequency. [10] those areas covered in the long answer questions. Eight short answer
questions were set for this unit, with a total score of 15 marks. 46
This question was designed to test the candidates understanding of the Candidates sat the exam. The average scores were 8.1 (54%), ranging from
technical and marketing functions of the packaging materials. 0 to 14 out of 15 marks. Common questions not well answered were
related to filter and processing aids, sterile filtration and cleaning
The first section was generally well answered by the majority of requirements.
candidates, with some clear definitions of the technical (containment,
measuring, beer quality) and marketing functions (branding, legal Long Answer Section
declarations, etc) being provided.
Performance by question
However, the second section of the question was poorly answered with a Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
number of candidates not recognising that large pack referred to either
keg or cask beer. This question should have covered the different 1 20 11 55
marketing requirements for selling the beer on a shop shelf, rather than 2 26 17 65
selling beer through a dispense system in a bar.
Question 1
The final section of the question was designed to be of a similar structure
to the final part of question one, only this time using a can and can Three possible ways to move beer from bright beer tank to the filler are
production line. Unfortunately a similar number of candidates struggled as follows:
with this part of the question and only four candidates provided a 1. Direct from BBT
reasonable answer which covered the checks at each machine, the 2. Via a buffer tank
standards to verify against and the frequency of these checks. 3. Via a flash pasteurizer
Describe the key requirements for each of the above that will ensure
product quality is not compromised. [9]

32 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Name four quality parameters that must be controlled during beer
transfer from bright beer tank to the filler and explain in detail how they
are controlled and why this is important to the final product. [16]
20 Candidates chose to answer this question, with scores ranging between
5 and 19, with an average score of 12.8 out of 25 (51.2%). The average
marks achieved on the first part of the question were 4 out of a possible 9
(45%), with marks ranging between 0 and 7. The average marks achieved
on the second part of the question were 9 out of a possible 16 (56%), with
marks ranging between 4.5 and 15.
In the higher scoring responses from section one, the candidates provided
different key requirements for each method of moving beer, and gave
specific details with regards to the equipment used. In section two, better
answers included sufficient detail on all four listed quality parameters with
regards to why its important to the final beer / customer impact and how
to control it by identifying correct controls and examples of these
specifications.
Question 2
Describe, with the aid of a sketch, the basic principles of a tunnel
pasteurizer. [8]
Explain what factors need to be considered in designing a tunnel
pasteurizer. [12]
List five engineering issues that are common when operating a tunnel
pasteurizer. [5]
26 Candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging between
10.5 and 22, with an average score of 15 out of 25 (60%).
The average marks achieved on the first part of the question were 6.1 out
of a possible 8 (77%), with marks ranging between 2 and 8.
The average marks achieved on the second part of the question were 6.3
out of a possible 12 (53%), with marks ranging between 2 and 12. The
average marks achieved on the third part of the question were 2.6 out of a
possible 5 (53%), with marks ranging between 0 and 5. Well answered
papers included a clearly labelled tunnel pasteurizer diagram in section
one indicating all described the basic principles which include but are not
limited to zone temperatures, water balance, conveying methods and
number of decks.
Better answers in section two listed and explained at least four factors to
be considered when designing a tunnel pasteurizer and gave examples of
each factor. Answers could have included any of the following factors;
materials of construction, transport system, spray system, temperature
balance, PU control, ease of cleaning and maintenance.
Section three required no explanation, just a simple list of five common
engineering issues that could occur when operating a tunnel pasteurizer.
Unit 3 Planning and Line Design
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understands the
brewery and packaging planning process and how it interfaces with the
overall organisational plans.
a) Explain how the planning process operates for your brewery. Your
submission should include sales forecasting, capacity planning,
production scheduling, materials planning and the interface with
the sales and distribution network. [4]
b) Using the above process as a reference, explain how this links to
your packaging line and the shift patterns worked on your line.
Outline the typical work week and projected weekly capacity
expected from your line. [4] Highlight two to three improvements
to the projected capacity plan that could be made with reasons. [6]
c) If your site is part of a larger company explain how your plan is
integrated with that of other sites within the business and what
implications this has throughout the year,
OR
If your site is the only site within your company, explain how
production contingency arrangements are set up including how and
when these would be executed. [6]
You are encouraged to provide and include diagrams, tables and
examples, capacity calculations and other related reference material
with appropriate commentary.
Assignment Performance
Grade No %
A 1 1.7
B 8 13.5
C 9 15
D 10 17
E 21 35.6
F 5 8.5
G 5 8.5
59 Candidates submitted this assignment with scores ranging from 4.5 to
16.5 out of 20, with an average score of 10.2 (51%).
Part A - The higher scoring responses provided a good comprehensive
description of the planning process from the higher strategic level down to
the actual day to day operational level. This description was
complemented with the provision of actual models, tables and schedules
to illustrate and support the points made. The weaker/poorer responses
failed to adequately cover the process in sufficient detail, and clearly did
not demonstrate a good understanding of the process.
Part B - The responses were better at the operational level in terms of
covering the activity levels and typical shift patterns worked on the line.
However, the poorer responses were not well substantiated or
dimensioned with little coverage of the full make-up of the projected
capacity plan and the impact of planned stoppages, seasonality and
maintenance on availability. In the majority of the submissions the
improvement recommendations tabled for the projected capacity plan
were not well dimensioned or quantified to substantiate the points made
by the candidate.
The final section, Part C covered contingency planning and how this took
place for the candidates respective brewery/regions. The better
submissions not only covered this aspect with plausible examples but also
dimensioned the costs and logistics implications, and, back-up strategies
for supply disruption and stock shortages.
Short Answer Questions
This section of the examination paper focused on determining the
candidates breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter, and excluded
those areas covered in the long answer questions.Seven short answer
questions were set for this unit, with a total score of 15 marks.
46 Candidates sat the exam with the other 13 candidates either absent,
deferred or withdrawn (A 22% drop out). The average scores were 7.8
(52%), ranging from 0 to 12 out of 15 marks. 54% of the candidates scored
greater than 50%. Common questions not well answered were noise
levels, OEE and losses, dynamic accumulation and strategic vs tactical
planning. These were either not answered or answered incorrectly.
Long Answer Questions
10 Candidates chose NOT to answer either question 1 or 2 (not sure
whether this was due to a lack of understanding of the question
requirements or content, or due to time constraints. It was also apparent
in the consolidated paper response that a high proportion of the responses
to Unit 1.3 long answer questions were addressed last, after answering
Units 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4.
Examiners Report 2016 33
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 27 17 63
2 9 1 22
Question 1
In tabular format list the key categories of solid and liquid waste handled
on a returnable glass packaging line by key machine/process area
depalletisation/palletisation; container/crate washing; empty/filled
container inspection; unpacking/packing; container/crate cleaning;
filling/sealing; pasteurising; and container handling. [7]
Provide a brief explanation of how three of the categories identified
above are handled, monitored, managed and accounted for with typical
key measures/targets. [14]
From a line design perspective select one key waste category covered
above and outline the potential improvement opportunities for re-use,
repair and/or recycle. [4]
27 Candidates chose to answer this question, with scores ranging between
4.5 and 20, with an average score of 12.4 out of 25 (49.6%).
This question comprised of three parts and focused on determining the
candidates understanding of and listing the categories of liquid and solid
waste handled on a returnable glass packaging line and, elaborating on
how three of these categories are handled, managed and accounted for
with specific commentary on potential improvement opportunities of the
waste cycle respectively.
In the higher scoring responses the candidates provided a comprehensive
table of categories of solid and liquid waste by key machine/process area
and identified three key categories with plausible discussion/elaboration
of how handled, stored, managed and disposed of. Candidates also
covered defects in process measures and indicators and impact on
operation in terms of costs, rework and disposal. Improvement
opportunities for one category selected were dimensioned in terms of
potential line design improvement.
Question 2
a) Identify and list the key materials of construction, including civil
finishes, for use on a modern best practice packaging line.
b) Explain the reasons for selection and briefly outline typical
functional performance criteria expected by respective material
type listed in Part (a)
c) Briefly explain in what area of the packaging line is stress corrosion
cracking likely to occur and what preventative measures could be
taken to prevent occurrence?
9 Candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging between
2.5 and 15, with an average score of 10.4 out of 25 (41.5%).
This question focussed on determining the candidates understanding of
the key materials of construction used, including civil finishes, on a modern
best practice packaging line, and the respective reasons for selection by
material.
Most responses listed the materials used for machinery and product
handling by simply covering the material type, eg stainless steel, mild steel,
galvanised steel, epoxy,etc, but the reasons for selection and functional
performance criteria in terms of life cycle costs, infection/contamination
risk reduction, maintainability, cleanability, avoidance of corrosion, health
and safety, were not dimensioned or elaborated on.
Stress corrosion cracking and likely areas of occurence is clearly not well
understood by the majority of the candidates who answered this part of
the question with no discussion on potential causes of stress corrosion
and/or preventative measures.
34 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Unit 4 Small Pack Operations
Assignment
This assignment is designed to show that you understand the working
principles of a bottle labeller and how the functionality of the equipment
ensures good bottle presentation.
For a bottling line of your choice describe in detail the working principles
of the bottle labeller. Identify the key parameter settings for each section
of the labeller and the impact on package presentation if there is
deviation from these settings. For the period of the assignment include
all quality inspection results and any actions taken arising from defects.
[12]
Explain how the bottle labeller is managed, maintained and cleaned and
the procedure for changeover between different package types. Include
where the package presentation may be improved through enhanced
management, maintenance, cleaning or more efficient changeovers. [8]
Assignment Performance
Grade No %
A 16 36.3
B 2 4.5
C 8 18.2
D 10 22.7
E 5 11.4
F 3 6.8
G 0 0
44 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
12.6, with the range of scores from 7 to 19. 81% of candidates achieved a
pass mark or higher.
The first part of the assignment was generally well answered with obvious
evidence that candidates had spent time at the labeller and understood
the working principles of the labeller. This was re-enforced by using actual
photos of the labeller and describing in detail each stage of the labelling
process. Most candidates listed the important parameters or settings on a
labeller and directly related these to potential quality issues if these
parameters were not set correctly or not met. Some candidates did not list
the quality results for the period of the assignment and others did not
analyse these results and subsequently describe corrective actions taken
therefore losing marks. It was not sufficient to answer this assignment
from a theoretical perspective using a Labeller Manufacturers manual.
The second part of the question had a range of answers. The marks were
split evenly between labeller management, maintenance, cleaning and
changeovers with an expectation that for each of these categories there
would be an improvement idea. Those achieving A grades did this. The
management of the labeller should have included the role of the operator,
any processes or procedures used, how the labeller was maintained with
the maintenance schedule and reasons for this, how it was cleaned with
particular areas of importance to focus on and frequency and also a
detailed description of the changeover procedure with changeover parts
required.
This was not a difficult assignment and by spending some time
understanding the working principles of the labeler and collecting all the
information and answering ALL the parts of the question then a good mark
could be achieved and a good learning experience had by the candidate.
Short Answer Section
45 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 9.1 from a
total 15 marks available from 8 questions. Scores ranged from 4 to 14.
Questions were meant to test the breadth of a candidates knowledge and
in general the questions on pasteurization, can filling, labels and bottles
were well answered however the questions surrounding can seaming were
not well answered and only 4 candidates managed to answer the
calculation on can seam parameters.
Long Answer Section Module 2:

Performance by question General comments and overview

Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 35 24 68 Whilst 40 candidates started the exam year this year, only 28 completed
2 10 3 30 the full module assignment submissions and examination. Again with this
module it was pleasing to see the growth of the Soft Drinks elective
module which continues to be a growth area as the examinations continue
Question 1
to grow outside of Europe. In this Module, the short answer questions
were generally well answered, but difficulties were experienced in the
Draw a typical returnable bottle line layout highlighting the function of
quality of some of the long answer questions, with candidates not able to
each piece of equipment. [7]
demonstrate the application of their knowledge and experience into the
questions.
On the pre-fill side of the bottle line choose two pieces of equipment and
describe in detail the purpose of this equipment, how it operates, how it
Overall pass/fail rates and grades
is maintained and any process parameters associated with the
Passed No %
equipment. [14]
Grade
Draw a V Graph of this bottle line highlighting the potential running A 0 0
speeds for each piece of equipment based on a filler speed of 800 B 5 25
bottles/minute. [4] C 3 15
D 5 25
35 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
2 and 23, with an average score of 13.4. 68% of candidates answering this
question passed. Failed 7 35
Total 20
The better candidates sketched a drawing of a returnable bottling line and
highlighted every piece of equipment and the function of that equipment.
Unit 1 Quality
For the second part of the question it was important to choose 2 pieces of
equipment prior to the filler and explain its operation, maintenance
Assignment
regime and the process parameters and critical settings for this machine.
Marks were awarded equally for each. Most candidates missed the
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understands the
opportunity to explain the critical parameters associated with the
key pasteurisation quality measures, and, cleaning and hygiene procedures
machine. The 3rd part of the question required a simple V graph with the
and standards used and applied on a tunnel pasteuriser installed on your
machines in the correct order based on the slowest machine ( usually the
packaging line.[If your site does not have a tunnel pasteuriser, you will
filler) at the bottom of the curve and then extending out to the other
need to arrange attendance at an appropriate location.]
machines with a 5-10% increase in running speed for each.
For your selected beer packaging bottle or can line tunnel pasteuriser,
Question 2
outline the most likely reasons for (a) under/over pasteurisation and (b)
dirty and blocked/slimed-up pasteuriser water spray systems, tanks and
Describe five different types of secondary packaging which may be used
piping. [4]
for packaging either glass bottles or cans and the packaging and financial
reasons for using the package type in each case. [10]
For the reasons tabled, identify the most appropriate methods of
prevention, and what key process monitoring and quality analysis checks
For a bottle or can line choose one type of secondary packaging and
should be used to manage pasteurisation performance for optimum and
using diagrams describe the packaging equipment required, the principal
consistent pasteurised beer quality. You are also required to identify and
features of the packaging operation and the quality assurance measures
summarise the key procedures, standards and practices used to monitor
which are in place to ensure a robust pack. [15]
and manage pasteuriser hygiene and cleanliness. [10]
10 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
Identify, list and clarify any improvements that could be introduced on
2 and 17, with an average score of 9.7. 30% of candidates answering this
your line to improve: (a) pasteuriser P.U. performance, and, (b)
question passed.
pasteuriser hygiene cleanliness. [6]
With a few exceptions this question was not very well answered. For the
You are encouraged to provide and include supporting pasteuriser
first part candidates were expected to list 5 examples of secondary
quality analysis and process monitoring examples, related key
packaging (eg cartons, trays etc ) and for each one describe their suitability
performance indicators, and, pasteuriser hygiene checks, cleaning and
and ease of use on a packaging line and the cost impact of using one type
water treatment criteria and procedures, and prevention/management
over another. The better answers did this and highlighted likely costs and
examples.
ease of operation but some candidates failed to answer these parts of the
question.
Assignment Performance
For the second part of the question the marks were split evenly between
Grade No %
the chosen packer and its functionality , how it operated and the quality
assurance in place. Straightforward explanations of what it does, how it A 2 5
does it and any QA checks to ensure pack integrity would have received B 5 13
enough marks to pass the question C 7 18
D 9 23
E 7 18
F 7 18
G 2 5

Examiners Report 2016 35

40 Students registered for this assignment, of which one candidate was
granted permission to carry over last years score and not submit an
assignment.
Of the 39 assignments marked, the average score achieved was 10.5 (52.5
%); with the scores ranging from 5 to 17 out of 20 marks. The assignment
was split into three parts with candidates providing a mixed standard of
answers to each of the respective parts.
In Part A, the majority of the responses outlined the most likely reasons for
over/under pasteurisation, and, blocked/slimed-up pasteuriser water
spray systems, tanks and piping. However, the better scoring responses
covered a comprehensive set of reasons by aspect with good supporting
explanation and context whereas the lower scoring responses merely
listed some items without any elaboration or quantification, e.g. lack of
adherence to the maintenance cycle.
In Part B the candidate was required to identify the most appropriate
methods of prevention, key process monitoring and quality analysis,
methods and checks and summarise key procedures, standards and
practices used.
The weaker responses provided one liner unsubstantiated possible
methods of prevention with little to no explanation of procedures and
standards to manage and prevent, whereas the higher scoring submissions
provided comprehensive well substantiated explanations supported by
examples of actual quality analysis, results and process monitoring
data/check lists, trends and indices.
In Part C the list of improvements tabled ranged from poor one liner
response lists not correlated or cross referenced to the subject matter
raised in Parts A and B, whereas the higher scoring submissions provided
plausible, well substantiated improvement recommendations, supported
by actual trends and indicators and appended examples of documents,
check lists to validate these recommendations.
A common aspect of concern in the lower scoring submission was the
generally weaker understanding of pasteuriser water treatment
procedures, the actual chemicals used, measures of effectiveness and
related performance indicators. The general response here was that these
aspects were supplier/contractor managed, and, chemicals referenced by
brand name with no actual discussions of type, reasons for use and how
monitored and managed!
Short Answer Section
This section of the examination paper focused on determining the
candidates breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter, and excluded
those areas covered in the long answer questions.
Seven short answer questions were set for this unit with a total score of 15
marks.
Of the 40 candidates registered for the unit, only 29 sat the examination,
with the other 11 candidates either absent, deferred or withdrawn. (A 28%
drop-out).
The average scores were 8.5 out of 15(57%), with scores ranging from 2.5
to 13.5 out of 15. (69% of the candidates scored greater than 50%).
Common questions not well answered were micro-biological control,
teardown analysis, seam measures and due diligence. These were either
not answered or answered incorrectly.
Long Answer Section
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 13 9 69
2 16 9 56
36 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Question 1
a) Describe the underlying principles that determine the efficiency of
detergent and sterilant action on a selected packaging line.
b) Outline the range of cleaning and sterilizing materials for use on a
packaging filling machine from bright beer inlet to post
crowning/seaming. Explain the reasons for selection by type and
purpose, and expected standard of cleanliness. (Do not use supplier
brand names).
13 Candidates chose to answer this question, with scores ranging between
4 and 19, with an average score of 12.4 out of 25 (49.6%).
This question focused on cleaning and sterilization of a packaging filling
process and was aimed at verifying the candidates understanding of the
principles determining the effectiveness of detergent and sterilant action,
and, identification of, and reasons for use of the cleaning materials and
chemicals selected, and, the expected standard of cleanliness.
In part (a) of the question the higher scoring responses covered and
dimensioned the key factors for effective cleaning, and clearly outlined the
properties and requirements of good detergents and sterilants, with the
provision of supporting diagrams/examples.
In part (b) the higher scoring responses provided a good explanation of the
range of cleaning and sterilising materials used on a packaging filling
machine, incorporating examples by type, purpose and expected standard
of cleanliness/ key performance indicators.
Question 2
a) Identify and explain the key analysis and process checks that are
undertaken to ensure that rewashed returnable glass bottles and
crates are fit for purpose prior to filling.
b) Explain two areas of concern identified by a HACCP survey on this
area of the line and their influence on food safety. Identify what
preventative or corrective action recommendations would apply.
16 Candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging between
2 and 15.5, with an average score of 11 out of 25 (44%). The standard of
response to this question was generally weak with candidates either not
fully understanding the learning material content, or not having full
exposure to the quality analysis/methods and process checks in this area
of operation. Some candidates also appeared to run out of time.
Part (a) of this question focused on determining the candidates
understanding of the key analysis and process checks used to ensure the
washed returnable glass bottles and crates are fit for purpose prior to
filling.
Candidates were expected to identify and dimension both crate and glass
container process checks, and, how these are monitored and managed viz
washed crate and container effectiveness, online inspection processes,
analysis methods, and, related consumer safety aspects.
The higher scoring responses were able to provide plausible explanations
with supporting methods of analysis and key indicators/measures of
effectiveness.
The majority of the weaker responses provided mainly one liner
comments with little to no elaboration of analysis methodology, key
indicators or process checks. Washed crate analysis and inspection
methodology was particularly weak and not well dimensioned.
In part (b) the candidates were expected to briefly cover the elements of
the HACCP study and how the two concern areas were identified, with
related recommended preventative/corrective action.
Nine of the 16 responses scored below 50% for this part of the question,
with the preventative/corrective action areas either poorly covered or not
answered at all.
Unit 2 Operations Management
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
purchase to pay cycle. Candidates and their companies were reminded
that any commercial information provided by candidates in their
submissions would be treated in the strictest confidence.
For an item of secondary packaging material used on a line with which
you are familiar explain the following:
a) How the item is ordered / contracted, called-off and delivered.
[4]
b) How quality and quantity are checked on receipt of the item. [3]
c) How non-conformances on quality or quantity are dealt with. [3]
d) How the delivery of the item is reconciled with the order and
invoice and thereafter how payment is made. [2]
e) How, for this item, supplier performance is managed. [3]
Comment on the purchase to pay cycle for this particular item of
secondary packaging material and suggest how it might be improved. [5]
Assignment Performance
Grade No % zero accidents; near zero quality defects; near zero lost time; near 100%
A 3 7.9
B 5 13.2
C 10 26.3
D 8 21
E 5 13.2
F 5 13.2
G 2 5.2
The better candidates had the target word count and good structure with
very effective use of diagrams, photographs, screen dumps and scans of
key documents. For a few candidates, submissions with 600 / 700 words
were clearly unlikely to meet the standard especially without scans of
documents or appendices.
Several candidates submissions were similar to descriptions from text-
books, highly theoretical and not demonstrating practical investigation.
Too many candidates failed to cover the material specification, approval of
suppliers and the sources of the data which dictates the quantity of an
item ordered e.g. forecast, demand profile etc. The best candidates
explained how payment was actually made (bank transfer, cheque etc).
The majority of candidates produced very worthwhile suggestions for
potential improvements to the purchase to pay cycle.
Short Answer
29 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 7, with the
scores ranging from 1(!) to a very good 14.
Question 2 (influences on inherent plant reliability) was, in general, not
well answered. The examiner was seeking three from: life cycle costing,
line design, plant selection, HACCP, technology risk assessment and project
management.
For Question 5 (examples of semi-variable costs) too many candidates
provided only variable costs with an obvious lack of understanding of the
difference.
Question 6 (financially based justifications for carrying out a capital
project) was looking for actual justifications such as cost reduction or profit
earning (or any of the relevant accounting acronyms) rather than examples
of projects themselves (e.g. a new packaging line).
Long Answer
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 22 6 27
2 7 3 43
Question 1
What is meant by the concept of World Class Manufacturing
performance? [8]
Explain the major elements regarded as essential to achieve World Class
Manufacturing status. [17]
This was clearly the most popular of the long answer questions with marks
ranging between a very poor 4 to a very good 20, with an average score of
11. Too many candidates clearly failed to exercise good time management
and allow sufficient time for their answers.
The marks (8) for the first part of the question implied that a list or very
brief explanation would be acceptable. A list could have included: near
on-time delivery record; leader in sustainable development; minimal
environmental impact; minimal waste; zero waste to landfill (100% re-use
/ recycling); bench-mark costs per unit of output; visible corporate
responsibility policy.
The second part of the question commanded the majority of the marks
and therefore demanded two-thirds of the time available. In seeking
explanations, the examiner would have expected (albeit brief)
explanations around most of the following practices and procedures:
integrated safety, quality and environmental management systems; multi-
skilled team working with high levels of competence; autonomous
maintenance; visible performance measurement; embedded RCM / TPM /
5S; routine use of 6 sigma; sophisticated, swift line changeovers; focussed
continuous improvement; regular and frequent team meetings; sustained
training and development for all employees; life-cycle costing;
manufacturing cost / hl; maintenance cost /hl.
Question 2
In the field of management accounting what is a variance and what are
the conventions for designating variances? [4]
Describe the main types of variance which might appear in monthly
management accounts. Identify the possible causes and suggest ways to
improve the accuracy of the budget process in future years. [16]
What are the major benefits of monitoring year to date (YTD) revenue
performance within the annual budget cycle? [5]
The 7 candidates who chose to answer this question scored marks ranging
from 2 (!) to a good 18 with an average of 11. As with question 1, several
candidates clearly did not allow sufficient time and, in four cases, did not
allocate their time appropriately. The first part of the question was
generally answered satisfactorily. For the second part of the question
(commanding two-thirds of the marks), the examiner was seeking
descriptions. The one good answer distinguished between fixed and
variable cost accounts with examples from each (e.g. for fixed: salaries,
maintenance etc; for variable: price, material usage etc). Suggestions for
ways to improve the accuracy of the budget process in future years might
have included tighter management of labour cost (headcount, holiday
arrangements, sickness controls) and better management of raw
materials.
Only one candidate achieved full marks for the third part of the question.
The principal benefit of monitoring year to date (YTD) revenue
performance is to have the ability to produce a year-end forecast position
and thereby give management the opportunity to exercise control and
make changes (e.g. for profit / loss purposes). A further important benefit
is, of course, to assess trends over the longer term.
Examiners Report 2016 37
Unit 3 Large Pack Operations Keg
Assignment
This assignment is designed to show that you understand the working
principles of the process of beer handling and keg filling and how the
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen , carbon dioxide and alcohol by volume are
controlled through the process.
For a keg line of your choice, explain how dissolved oxygen, nitrogen,
carbon dioxide and alcohol by volume in the beer are controlled from full
bright beer tank to full keg. This should include details of specifications,
process control mechanisms and plant design and focus on the working
principles of each area where these parameters may change. [12]
Assess and discuss how each parameter is measured and the impact on
beer quality if out of specification. Show the actual results for the period
of the assignment and highlight any areas which may be improved. [8]
Assignment Performance
Grade No %
A 3 9 Annual output = 600,000 hls
B 5 15.2
C 8 24.2
D 8 24.2
E 5 15.2
F 1 3 8 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 4
G 3 9 and 22, with an average score of 12.8. 62% of candidates answering this
33 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
10.9, with the range of scores from 3 to 16. 73% of candidates achieved a
pass mark or higher.
As with all assignments the candidates who scored best were able to
demonstrate that they had spent time on the keg line and had fully
understood and were able to explain the working principles of the line in
relation to the control of oxygen, carbon dioxide and alcohol content in
beer. The scope of this assignment was from bright beer tank to full keg so
any explanation outside this area was not considered and some candidates
explained the whole bright beer production process which was not
necessary. To answer this assignment successfully and importantly to take
the learnings from the work the answer should be structured so that for
each of the 3 elements (O2/CO2/alcohol) list the specifications ( ie levels
acceptable at each measured stage of the kegging process) , outline the
process control mechanisms and relate this to plant design which keep
these elements in specification . Real examples and numbers were
required and also any areas where this was not fit for purpose or could be
improved.
The second part of the question had a range of answers. Candidates who
failed to score highly tended to not include actual results or suggest areas
for improvement a key reason for the assignment. Some candidates
spent a lot of time explaining how measurement was carried out which
attracted some marks but was only 25% of the required answer.
Short Answer Section
29 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 10.8 from a
total 15 marks available from 8 questions. Scores ranged from 2 to 15.
Questions were meant to test the breadth of a candidates knowledge and
most candidates answered the questions on keg line checks, keg sterility,
keg line design and dispense. Some candidates managed to answer the
numerical question on keg line performance but for others this was too
much of a challenge.
38 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Long Answer Section
Performance by question
Question Answered Passed by Passed
by %
1 8 5 62
2 21 16 76
Question 1
Design and Operation of a Keg De-unitiser. Empty kegs are usually
presented to a keg line in stacks on pallets or boards. Describe in detail
the methods and machines used to remove kegs from stacks or pallets
(de-unitise} prior to washing and filling and how the correct de-unitising
machine is chosen for a specific keg line. [10]
Describe how the de-unitising machine is operated, maintained and the
safety procedures used to ensure safe operation. [10]
Calculate the minimum operating speed required for a de-unitiser based
on a beer keg line with the following required output :- [5]
One keg size = 50 litres
48 week operation
5 day operation of 2 x 8 hour shifts.
Line efficiency = 70%
question passed.
The better candidates gave a full explanation of 2 different types of
machine and methods to de-unitise kegs (eg depalletisers , robots,
manual). This included the choice of machine depending on the keg line
requirements (keg size, output, manning, cost, keg orientation, pallets,
layer pads, handling) and an explanation of how each machine functioned.
Candidates who did not score so well only gave a basic answer for one
type of de-unitiser. For the second part of the answer marks were split
evenly between how the de-unitiser was operated, maintained and the
safety aspects of operating the machine. Answers were expected to cover
mode of operation, maintenance plans, CILTS, safety procedures eg LOTO .
The calculation for part 3 was either answered well or not at all marks
were awarded for working even if the correct answer was not quite
reached.
Question 2
List four key common beer dispense problems and for each problem
explain the reasons for this and the steps that should be taken to rectify
the problem. [10]
Describe a typical beer line cleaning regime including timing, materials
used and the microbiological impact on the beer if this regime is not
adhered to. [15]
21 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
0 and 22, with an average score of 15.9. 76% of candidates answering this
question passed.
With a few exceptions this question was very well answered. For the first
part candidates were expected to list common beer dispense issues ( eg no
beer, fobbing, flat, cloudy) and for each issue describe likely causes ( eg gas
pressure, valve or pump issues, temperature problems, micro infection etc
and for each one provide a solution or even better a prevention which
meant that there was always perfect dispense. For the second part of the
question it should be noted that this question is based on beer dispense
therefore the question related to cleaning of a beer dispense line. Some
candidates interpreted this as any beer line and in this case these answers
have been accepted although the topic was beer dispense lines. Most
answers contained enough detail on cleaning cycles detergents , timing,
flushing, hazes , key microbiological issues to merit a pass.
Unit 5 Brewing
Assignment
This assignment is designed for you to demonstrate your knowledge of
your brewerys mash separation system (If your site does not have a mash
separation system you will need to organise attendance at an appropriate
location.)
With the aid of clearly labeled diagrams and/or photographs describe the
main features of the mash separation facility in your brewery. Your
submission should identify all equipment and unit operations from
intake of slurried mash to disposal of spent grain. Explain how the mash
separation device is controlled and how its performance is evaluated in
terms of wort quality, extract efficiency and cycle time. [14]
Provide two recommendations to improve the mash separation facility at
your brewery - justify each with an indicative cost/benefit analysis. [6]
12 submissions were received. Of the 20 marks available the average mark
was 14 and the range was 8 18
Generally the requested labelled diagrams /photographs were to a good
standard but marks were lost for incorrect legends and missed
identification of essential features such as the false floor or CIP capability
Unit operations were well covered. but commonly missed were the need
to drain down the grain bed before graining out (or compression in the
mash filter) and the need to clean under the false floor after graining out.
The need to control wort clarity and extract recovery and cycle time were
generally well covered. Only two candidates referenced the DArcy
equation and the factors involved. With two notable exceptions
measurement and control of Differential Pressure was not detailed
enough.
The two improvements offered were generally valid, but again, as in
previous years, not enough consideration was given to outline technical
feasibility and cost/benefit analysis (two notable exceptions). Of course
only offering one recommendation was an immediate loss of 3 marks.
Short Answer Section
13 submissions were received. Of the 15 marks available the average score
was 9 with a range of 3 15
Reasons for the predominance of barley in beer brewing were scant -
grown over wide latitudes, strong protective husk for good mash filtration,
rich in starch, all nutritional requirements needed for yeast, low in
detrimental oils, to name a few. The question on water salts asked about
the contribution to beer flavour and most answers, whilst identifying salts,
did not address the contribution to beer flavour
Few correctly identified the hydrolytic breakdown of the endosperm
during steeping and germination as modification Saccharification
temperature was poorly understood by many. The best temperature for
maximum fermentability is 62-63C which favours Beta amylase activity
producing maltose which is completely fermentable. The best temperature
for maximum extract would be 69 72 which favours alpha amylase. This
is able to liquefy more of the starch (extract) but will yield non
fermentable dextrins as well as fermentable sugars.
Again, as reported in previous years the breakdown of protein during
malting and mashing was poorly understood. The resultant polypeptides
are essential for beer foam and the resultant amino acids are essential for
yeast nutrition
Whilst most candidates understood the need for sub-zero temperature
storage to precipitate chill haze and improve colloidal stability, few
identified the need for low dissolved oxygen to improve shelf-life and
flavour stability. The purposes of wort boiling and the requirements for
successful fermentation were generally well answered.
With the aid of clearly labelled diagrams and/or photographs describe
the main features of the grist preparation facility in your brewery and
explain how grist composition is controlled. Your submission should
identify all equipment and unit operations from raw material intake to
slurried grist in the mash vessel (details of mash vessel are not required ).
Your description should include conveying techniques, safety features for
dust explosion avoidance, food safety compliance, and inventory control.
Provide two recommendations to improve grist preparation performance
at your brewery. Justify each with an indicative cost/benefit analysis.
Long Answer Section
Question 1
a) A brewing adjunct is generally defined as a source of extract other
than that from malted barley. Identify two cereal adjuncts derived
from the processing of two different non-barley cereals. For each
adjunct briefly describe how it is produced, how it would be
introduced to the brewing process, and what would be the reasons
for its usage. [15]
b) Compared to using pockets (bales) of whole hops, describe the
benefits of using the two hop products listed below. Briefly
describe how each hop product is produced and how it would be
used in the brewery:- [10]
i) Pre-isomerised hop pellets
ii) Reduced pre-isomerised extract (e.g.Tetrahop)
8 candidates answered this question. Of the 25 marks available the
average mark was 9.5 with a range of 0 18. The candidate with 0 marks
wrote 4 lines that were not in any way valid to the question. And one
candidate only answered part a)
Several candidates lost significant marks by including wheat, maize, and
rice which are not processed cereals, but marks were still awarded for
correct method of use and correct reasons for usage.
Answers on pre-isomerised hop pellets were confused with pre-isomerised
hop extract, and answers on reduced pre-isomerised extract were
confused with hop oil extract. Very little was offered as to how these hop
products are produced. With two notable exceptions there was little
discussion around the benefits of these hop products compared to the use
of whole leaf hops.
Question 2
a) Briefly explain yeast propagation and why it is required. Outline a
typical propagation process starting from a laboratory agar slope of
the master strain to the pitching of the first brewery fermentation.
Identify the critical process parameters that need to be monitored
and controlled. [13]
b) Define the parameters that need to be assessed for the suitability
of a yeast for pitching. Explain how the required fermentation
vessel yeast count is ensured. [12]
Examiners Report 2016 39
4 candidates answered this question. For the 25 marks available the
average score was 7and the range was 3 9.
Part a) 13 marks was poorly answered. The question required
understanding of what yeast propagation is ( to create from Laboratory
scale a new culture of pure yeast of sufficient mass to pitch a fermenting
vessel) why it is needed (preventative measure to avoid sluggish/abnormal
fermentations from mainly increased levels of trub, and microbial
contamination) and how it is controlled (temperature, oxygen, sterility).
Part b) 12 marks was scarcely attempted. The suitability of yeast for
pitching would have included correct strain, generation number, absence
of microbial contamination, normal concentration/solids, viability, storage
time and temperature, and performance of fermentation from which yeast
cropped. The desired yeast count in Fermenting vessel requires knowing
accurate yeast concentration and viability of the pitching yeast and an
accurate way of measuring the required yeast volume or mass.
Unit 6 Carbonated Soft Drinks
Assignment
This assignment is designed to show understanding of the basic principles
involved in some of the key quality measures involved in the manufacture
of carbonated soft drinks.
Taking into account the parameters of fill levels, carbonation, sugar/ acid
content and closure integrity (caps or can ends) for carbonated soft
drinks which are filled in your own plant or company, explain in detail:-
a) The procedures used for measurement of each of these
aspects. [3]
b) Why each parameter is important to the finished product
quality. [3]
c) The frequency of the analytical checks. [3]
d) Who is responsible for carrying out the analyses. [3]
e) Why it is imperative that the measurement records are
retained. [3]
Comment and make recommendations on how improvements may be
made to highlight and correct any out-of-specification issues that may
occur. [5]
You are encouraged to provide and include diagrams, tables and
examples, capacity calculations and other related reference material
with appropriate commentary.
Assignment Performance
14 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
14.1 out of 20, with a range of scores from 7 to 19. 78% of the candidates
achieved a pass mark or higher.
Those candidates who scored well showed a good understanding of the
parameters of fill level, carbonation, brix/acidity and closure integrity in
the manufacture of carbonated soft drinks in terms of procedures, finished
product quality, frequency of checks, responsibility for carrying out the
checks and especially why records must be retained. There was excellent
illustrative evidence with specific reference to the requirements of
maintaining records for quality system maintenance, product traceability
and statistical and trend analysis for the purposes of problem-solving and
process improvement.
40 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Strong recommendations pointed towards integration of QMS, effective
adherence to maintenance and calibration of test equipment,
advancement of technology to reduce human interference in process
measurement, and operator competence and empowerment. There was
evidence of good use of initiative for an investigative approach where a
candidate was not based at a soft drinks plant.
Candidates who failed to score highly with this project did not present
evidence at a level that was expected, preferring to either fill the report
with diagrams/photographs or purely detail step-by-step procedures of
each quality parameter measurement with little in the way of significant
recommendations of suggestions for improvement. In order to attain good
marks, candidates should make the effort to carefully read what is
required of the project.
Short Answer Section
14 candidates took the exam and achieved an average score of 9.4 out of a
total 15 marks available from 8 questions. The range of scores was from 6
to 15.
The questions were designed to cover the whole supply chain of
manufacturing and storage of soft drinks covered in the training notes,
testing the knowledge of the candidates in areas that they should have
awareness. Only approximately half of them demonstrated a good or
reasonable level of knowledge and it was disappointing to find a higher
than expected level of either low or zero scores, especially in the last last
three questions. This may have been down to lack of time but nevertheless
concerning.
Long Answer Section
Of the 14 candidates who took the exam, the overall average score for this
section was 16 out of 25, with a range of 8 to 23. Five candidates answered
question 1 whilst 9 chose question 2.
Question 1
Taking into account some of the key elements of production line
performance described below:-
machine operation and subsequent malfunctions
multi-product programming and material supply to the line
hygiene routines
Explain in detail how each can contribute to poor efficiency and
utilisation of the production line. [15]
Describe how improvements can be introduced to avoid regular
occurrence of problems relating to the above elements in order to
improve efficiency and line utilisation. [10]
Of the five candidates who chose this question, only one scored well and
one gave a fair answer. The question was looking for demonstration of
clear knowledge with evidence of how each element leads to inefficiency
and poor use of the facilities in their own plant, presenting diagrammatic
evidence where possible.
The second part of the question was asking for evidence of how each of
the inefficiencies can be overcome to achieve improvement to overall line
performance. The level of scores indicated a wide spread of achievement
with two good sets of answers, one average and two which were poorly
given with weak answers.
Question 2 Assignment Performance

Give two examples of each of the following four ingredient groups in a Grade No %
soft drink:- [8]
A 10 45
a) acids
b) preservatives B 5 23
c) antioxidants
d) intense sweeteners C 5 23
D 1 4.5
Explain fully and precisely the role of these four ingredient groups in a
E 1 4.5
non-carbonated soft drink. [17]
F 0 0
This question was designed purely to test the candidates knowledge of
soft drinks ingredients and to give a full and precise of the role of each in a G 0 0
non-carbonated soft drink. Of the nine candidates who answered this
question, all scored between 50 and 100% marks which proved that they 22 candidates tendered submissions for this assignment, achieving
were quite familiar with the examples of ingredients asked for. However, an average score of 15, with the range of scores from 9 to a 19. The
when it came to giving a full and precise description of the role of each best submissions included diagrams, graphs and photographs.
group of ingredients, only 7 scored above 50%.
Two candidates produced virtual model submissions but, as the scores
Module 3: demonstrate, the majority of submissions were good. Several candidates
submissions were far too high on wordcount e.g. 3,600 or 4,000!
General Comments
A number of candidates were unable to demonstrate a clear
Whilst 24 candidates started the exam year this year, 20 completed the full understanding of World Class maintenance performance, simply
module assignment submissions and examination, which reflects the explaining the philosophy. The examiner was seeking a significant
normal lower drop off rate, as most candidates use this as their final quantitative list of at least 12 KPIs (e.g. planned maintenance work >90%;
module of the Diploma. The increased B and C scores on this assignment breakdown work <3%; planned maintenance schedule compliance 100%;
again reflect the standard of the candidates at this stage in the Diploma, as maintenance overtime <5% etc).
well as tending to indicate a strong engineering background knowledge
often seen within the packaging areas. Unit 3.1 proved to be the most In terms of future maintenance policy, one candidate pleasingly
challenging for candidates this year a sign that the candidates mentioned how to improve prevention through better design and
interaction with the broader business areas is not as strong as would be procurement. However, there was little mention of life cycle costing in
expected at this level. seeking higher inherent reliability.

Overall pass/fail rates and grades The examiner was disappointed that one candidate was not allowed to
Passed No % provide figures for his/her packaging line MTBF, MTTR, breakdowns etc
Grade which would have greatly aided that section of the submission.
A 0 0
Short Answer Section
B 5 25
C 3 15 20 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 6.5,
D 5 25 with the scores ranging from 1 to 11.
Failed 7 35
Q1 (environmental aspects) was the best answered question in Section A
Total 20 whilst surprisingly Q3 (impact on the environment of burning fossil fuels)
was least well answered carbon foot-printing being the answer sought
Unit 1 Resource Management by the examiner. For Q4 (two systems for monitoring H & S performance),
too many candidates simply gave examples without classifying them under
Assignment Active and Reactive systems. Finally Q7, Preventative maintenance
work which is triggered by knowledge of the equipment obtained from a
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the regular or continuous monitoring is a definition of condition based
role of plant maintenance in the overall operational performance of a maintenance which too few candidates recognized.
packaging line.
Long Answer Section
Describe the maintenance policy for your packaging operation. [3]
Performance by question
Explain how maintenance is currently carried out and the philosophical
basis for this approach. Provide details to illustrate the effectiveness of Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
the maintenance (this could include for example plant availability, line 1 11 4 36
efficiency / OEE, maintenance costs per unit of output, safety 2 8 2 25
performance, quality performance, spares strategy, operator / technician
/ craftsmen ratios etc). [6]
Question 1
Carry out a gap analysis to compare your maintenance performance to
Describe the cost benefit hierarchy for achieving water savings. [8]
World Class. [6]
Explain how the cost benefit hierarchy can be used to provide a
Draw conclusions and make recommendations for future maintenance
structured approach to a water use efficiency strategy. [17]
policy. [5]

Examiners Report 2016 41

Marks for this question ranged between a 2 to 17, with an average score
of 9.5.
Despite the five step cost benefit hierarchy being extensively covered in
both the syllabus and the revision notes, a minority of candidates were not
able to provide the description asked for. Better candidates reproduced
the diagram from the notes which enhanced their answers.
For the second part of the question the examiner was seeking a staged
approach to improving water use efficiency using the cost benefit
hierarchy as a key component. Such an approach might have been:
produce mass balance; construct simple model; reduce waste; improve
management; identify reuse and recycling options; generate strategic
vision; develop improvement plan; implement water reuse and recycle
Improvements.
Question 2
What are the components normally included in a written Health and
Safety policy statement? [12]
List the objectives of a Health and Safety policy. [4]
Briefly explain how these objectives can be achieved in practice. [9]
The 8 candidates who chose to answer this question were awarded marks
ranging between 7 and 15 with an average score of 11.
Health and Safety is usually the section of the syllabus best answered
every year. However, this question was, in general, not well answered and
clearly was not comfortable for many. Time management again appeared
to be an issue for some candidates.
For the first part of the question the examiner was seeking an
understanding that written statements of health and safety policy should,
at the very least: set the direction for the organization by demonstrating
senior management commitment; set health and safety in context with
other business objectives; make a commitment to continuous
improvement in health and safety performance. These key points should
have been developed by: identifying the Director or key Senior Manager
with overall responsibility for formulating and implementing the policy;
having the document signed and dated by the Director or Chief Executive;
explaining the responsibilities of managers and staff; recognizing and
encouraging the involvement of employees and safety representatives;
outlining the basis for effective communications; showing how adequate
resources will be allocated; committing the leaders to planning and
regularly reviewing and developing the policy; securing the competence of
all employees and the provision of any necessary specialist advice.
The objectives of a H&S policy should set a clear direction for the
organization to follow. A list of these objectives could, therefore, have
included: to contribute to all aspects of business performance as part of a
demonstrable commitment to continuous improvement; to meet
responsibilities to people in ways which fulfill the spirit and letter of the
law; to satisfy stakeholders' expectations in the activity (whether they are
shareholders, employees, or their representatives, customers or society at
large); to ensure there are cost-effective approaches to preserving and
developing physical and human resources, which reduce financial losses
and liabilities.
Finally, for the third part of the question (how the H & S objectives can be
achieved in practice), the examiner was seeking an explanation and
development of Organising, Planning, Measuring Performance and without including units does not allow the examiner to determine where
Auditing and Reviewing Performance.
Unit 2 Fluid Mechanics
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show the candidates understanding of
beer carbonation.
42 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Following a beer transfer piping arrangement from a bright beer tank to
a can or bottle filler in your packaging hall, determine the range of linear
flow velocities in the pipe during beer transfer and identify the type of
pump being used. Do these flow rates, particularly the maximum flow
velocity, make sense given what you know about how beer is to be
handled. Why or why not? Likewise, has an appropriate pump been
selected? [6]
Perform the necessary calculations to convert the linear velocities into
volumetric flow rates. [2]
Working from the pump, identify and record the nature of the fittings,
valves, and pipe bends in the arrangement, both upstream and
downstream of the pump, along with the pressures and static heights in
the bright beer tank and the filler bowl. [4]
Using the information you have gathered thus far, perform the necessary
calculations to estimate the pumping power required of the pump and
compare this theoretical calculation with the actual pump power/size of
the pump in question. If the theoretical and actual pump power values
are considerably different, explain why this might be the case. [8]
Assignment Performance
Grade No. %
A 6 32
B 4 21
C 4 21
D 3 16
E 0 0
F 1 5
G 1 5
Nineteen candidates attempted this section and 17 passed with an
average passing score of 73% correct.
The examiner was looking for candidates to measure and record flow rates
in pipework to the filler, perform some basic total head calculations,
accounting for frictional losses in the pipework and the fittings, and
estimate the pumping power required. Finally, the candidate was asked to
compare the calculations against the specifications of the pump that is
currently installed and justify differences. The first part of the assignment
asked candidates to determine the range of flow velocities in the pipework
running between a bright beer tank and a package filler. This could easily
be determined by looking at the output of inline flow meters, but very few
candidates took this approach. In many cases the candidates used the can
filling speed and backed out the volumetric flow rate, which was
acceptable but nonetheless a little tedious. However, in some cases
candidates began with a Reynolds number (for instance 2100) and worked
backwards to estimate theoretical flow velocities without any connection
to the process at hand (moving beer from a BBT to a filler). This gave
results that were not connected to the actual pumping conditions in the
packaging hall and thus did not receive very high marks. In order to
estimate total pumping requirements, the total head calculation must
include frictional losses in the system. Many candidates identified the
various fittings in the pipework and their associated loss coefficients but
surprising the contribution to frictional loss from these fittings were not
included in the total head calculation.
As a note to the current and future candidates, working example problems
computational and/or formulaic problems are occurring. As a result, the
examiner has difficulty in awarding partial credit. Finally, the candidates
are urged to use some commons sense and intuition when looking at their
calculations. For instance, if the brewery is packaging 40 hL/hour of beer in
a typical operation, calculating a Reynolds number that yields a value as
far off as NRe = 150 should raise a red flag.
Short Answer Section
Twenty candidates attempted this section and 13 passed with an average
passing score of 74% correct.
This section of the exam was meant to examine the breadth of the syllabus
and the candidate pools performance was mixed. While nearly all
candidates were able to identify the correct values for laminar, transitional
and turbulent flow Reynolds numbers for fluids flowing in pipes, most
were unable to correctly describe the meaning of the Reynolds number. It
is more than a dimensionless number in that it describes the ratio of
inertial to viscous forces within the fluid and this is what gives rise to
laminar vs turbulent flow. Simple calculations of hydrostatic pressure and
fluid velocity were handled correctly by most candidates. Surprisingly,
candidates had a hard time correctly identifying a globe valve given a cut-
away diagram. The concept of super-saturation of CO2 was mishandled by
nearly all candidates. For a fluid that is saturated with CO2 and is flowing
in a pipe (thus with no additional CO2 being added) a pressure decrease
and/or temperature increase will lead to super-saturation. Most
candidates incorrectly described this in reverse.
Long Answer Section
Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 15 7 47
2 5 2 40
Question 1
Discuss cavitation; that is, define what it is, identify instances where it is
likely to occur, describe why it is not wanted, and identify measures to
reduce the chance of it occurring. [10]
Define available Net Positive Suction Head and present an equation that
includes the key components used to calculate NPSH. Why is the
available NPSH a necessary piece of information when sizing a pump? [8]
Calculate the available Net Positive Suction Head and determine if the
pump will cavitate given the NPSH required = 4 m. [7]
Data:
Suction-side fluid source is open to the atmosphere at 101 kPa.
Suction-side static head is 2 m.
Suction-side frictional losses equal 1.5 m.
Liquid vapour pressure is 70 kPa.
Liquid density is 1000 kgm-3
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 ms-2
Sixteen candidates chose this question and seven passed with an average
score of 69%. The nine that did not pass did rather poorly, averaging only
16%.
This question created a considerable challenge for many candidates
despite it being rather straightforward. The first part of the question asked
the candidate to discuss cavitation by defining it, identifying where it
might occur, why it is not wanted, and measures to reduce the chances of
it occurring. Cavitation is the generation of liquid vapour bubbles due to
localized reduction in pressure in a pump/pipeline system, such as across
the turbine blade of a pump or due to a restriction in a pipeline. It is not
the entrainment of air in a liquid, rather it is a phase change of the fluid
itself. It is unwanted because of the damage that bubble re-collapse can do
to pumps and the reduced performance. It occurs on the suction side of
the pump particularly with hot fluids where the vapour pressure is high.
Anything that can be done to increase suction side head will help reduce
chances of it occurring.
The second part of the question focused on NPSH with candidates defining
it to varying degrees of accuracy and then describing why having sufficient
NPSH is a requirement for pump performance. Available NPSH is compared
with the required NPSH specified by the pump manufacturer and with
insufficient available NPSH performance will be diminished and long-term
mechanical damage can occur.
The final part of the question involved a calculation of available NPSH,
which was straightforward if one was familiar with the concept of NPSH. A
considerable portion of the candidate pool did not attempt the problem.
Judging by the disparity among the scores, it appeared that a substantial
portion of the candidates did not do a very good job in their preparation
for this unit.
Question 2
Explain by using the appropriate physical relationships how the rate of
CO2 uptake in beer is affected by the beer temperature, carbon dioxide
pressure, and method of introduction of CO2. [10]
Identify and compare three different modes of carbonation, briefly
describing the advantages and disadvantages of each. [9]
Beer at 0C containing 2.7 vol/vol of CO2 (at STP) is fed to a filler bowl
and in transit it warms to 5C. Determine the pressure the filler bowl
must be held at in order to keep the CO2 in solution. [6]
Henrys constants for CO2:
Temperature Henrys constant for CO2
(C) (kPa/mole fraction)
0 78916
5 96799
10 115943
1 mole of ideal gas at STP occupies 22.4 L.
Assume the density of beer equals that of water = 1000 gL-1.
Molecular weights: CO2 = 44, H2O = 18.
Five candidates chose this question and two passed with average score of
70%. The three non-passing candidates averaged 40%.
Even though a smaller portion of the candidate pool attempted this
question, the performance was generally better than with the cavitation
question (Q5). The first part of the question asked the candidate to discuss
the relationships of temperature, pressure, and method of introduction on
CO2 uptake. This was easiest to describe if one focused on mass transfer
from the gas phase into the liquid phase and coupled this with Henrys law.
Two candidates tackled this part well however the remaining did very
poorly. The next part asked candidates to compare different approaches to
carbonating beer and this was handled fairly well for the most part. The
last part, the calculation, was a straightforward Henrys law problem that
was successfully attempted by two candidates but clearly difficult for
three. The correct answer was 210 kPa. One should note that the
weighting of scores for this question was balanced such that a candidate
could pass even if they got caught up in the computations.
Unit 3 Thermal Energy Transfer
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that you understand the key issues
in operating and maintaining an efficient refrigeration system.
Produce or reproduce a schematic diagram of a large refrigeration
system in your brewery or packaging hall. You should show and label all
the devices in the system along with pipe and insulation sizes, pressures
and temperatures. Explain the key parameters to be monitored to ensure
effective control. [4]
Stating any assumptions you make and showing your work, calculate the
overall Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the system. [4]
Examiners Report 2016 43
Carry out a critical audit of the refrigeration system including an
assessment of the total operating costs. [7]
Draw conclusions on the overall performance of the system and make
recommendations for improvements. [5]
Assignment Performance
Question 1
Prepare a diagram of the heat exchange equipment used to flash
pasteurize beer labelling its important components. [10]
Briefly describe the advantages and disadvantages of plate exchangers.
[12]

Grade No % Beyond the the flash pasteurizer described above, list three additional
A 3 19 examples of where plate heat exchangers are used in the packaging hall,
brewery or utilities plant. [3]
B 6 38
C 2 13 Thirteen candidates chose this question and 11 passed with an average
D 4 25 score of 76%. The two that did not perform well were not close to passing,
E 1 6 averaging only 44%.
F 0 0
Candidates attempting this question appeared, for the most part, prepared
G 0 0
to discuss heat exchange, plate heat exchangers and pasteurization
equipment. The question began by asking candidates to draw a plate heat
Sixteen candidates attempted this section and 15 passed with an average exchanger (PHE) used to flash pasteurize beer. Many of the candidate
passing score of 71% correct. drew a diagram identifying the 4 key areas regeneration, heating, holding,
cooling and the process streams in and out, and this gave them a little
The examiner was looking for candidates to start by presenting a clean, more than half marks. The examiner was also looking for important
potentially annotated schematic of a refrigeration plant that included components such as temperature sensors (and appropriate locations) and
cooling load and heat reject temperatures in and out, compressor suction feedback to valving on process streams as well as booster pumps and back
and discharge pressures, liquid refrigerant temperatures, etc. Nearly all pressure valves to prevent gas breakout. Most candidates were able to
submissions included nice diagrams and in many cases these were taken successfully describe advantages and disadvantages of PHEs, although
from existing engineering diagrams or HMI screens, which was entirely many failed to mention long gasketing (and the potential for leaking) as
appropriate. This was the part of the assignment where nearly everyone the general weakness of this type of heat exchanger. Nearly all were able
got full marks. The second part involved defining and then calculating the to identify other examples where PHEs are used in the brewery, packaging
COP of the system. In short, the COP is a measure of efficiency that hall or utilities.
identifies how much cooling effect is obtained per amount of work
performed by the compressor. And, it should be easy to calculate by Question 2
simply using the refrigerant properties on the high and low sides of the
system. However, there were some creative approaches to defining and With the aid of a diagram describe the basic operations of an ideal
calculating this value. The third section involved carrying out an audit of vapour-compression refrigeration cycle and explain how it can be
the refrigeration system. The examiner was looking for faults and/or areas adopted as a primary refrigerant system for a packaging operation. On
of improvement in the refrigeration system, sensors and/or control. The your diagram note the properties of the refrigerant as it moves
last part focused on conclusions and was the most variable in terms of throughout the system. [14]
performance. The stellar assignments had brief costs and ROI calculations
for improvements to the refrigeration system while the poor submissions Glycol with a specific heat of 3.0 kJkg-1K-1 is flowing at 2 kgs-1 and is
either did not touch on specific improvement or failed to justify them with being cooled from 0C to -4C using a single stage vapour-compression
any rigor. refrigeration system. Calculate the compressor motor size necessary to
accomplish this task if the system is operating with a coefficient of
performance of 4.0 and the compressor is operating at 70% efficiency. [8]
Short Answer Section
What does the coefficient of performance describe about the
Twenty candidates attempted this section and 16 passed with an average refrigeration system and how can it be increased? [3]
passing score of 76% correct.
Seven candidates chose this question and 6 passed with an average score
The concept of latent versus sensible heat was described correctly by most of 71%. The one that did not perform well scored 44%.
candidates, but many had difficulty picking values from a steam table to
carry out a simple calculation. Diagramming co-current exchange was easy In general, the candidates did well on this question and demonstrated
for some but a challenge for others. Many had difficulty describing their knowledge of refrigeration. The first part of the question involved
temperatures effect on beer density, which has its maximum at roughly diagramming a refrigeration system and discussing the state of the
3.5 - 4.0C and is therefore lower above and below this point (not higher as refrigerant as it moved throughout the system. This was answered well in
some described). Most could identify heat exchanger selection for general, but many candidates failed to answer the final item, which was
different applications. how to use a primary refrigerant in the plant. The obvious answer was that
it could be used to chill glycol, but other answers could have been given
Long Answer Section such as cold room cooling. The calculations were straightforward for most
with 24 kW being removed at the evaporator and thus requiring 6 kW on
Performance by question work on the refrigerant by the compressor. A 8.6 kW motor was needed to
drive the compressor. The last part of the question had mixed
Question Answered by Passed by Passed % performance. COP is a measure of performance and it can be increased by
1 12 11 92 reducing the work performed by the compressor (lowering compressor
pressure) and increasing the pressure of the evaporator (warmer cooling
2 7 6 86 temperature). It can also be aided by subcooling the refrigerant before
expansion.

44 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Unit 4 Unit Control
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show your understanding of the
operation of the control systems in use on your packaging line.
Identify a PID control system that is currently used on a packaging line of
your choice and describe with suitable figures and/or diagrams the logic
behind this type of control loop. [10]
On your chosen packaging line, find an example each of feed forward and
open loop control and for each of these:- [10]
Describe the system being controlled;
Explain the principle(s) and mechanism(s) upon which the
sensing element works;
Discuss in detail the role the actuator plays and how it
functions for each control loop.
22 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
65, with the range of scores from 90 to 60.
Short Answer Section
19 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 65%, with
the scores ranging from 20% to 100%.
Long Answer Section
Question 1
Describe the factors to be considered when selecting a sensor/s for use in
the packaging hall. [10]
Describe the purpose and operation of each of the following items in a
computer control system. For each, provide an example within a
packaging plant along with a rationale for its selection.
Input/Output (I/O) interface. [5]
Programmable Logic Controller PLC. [5]
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCADA. [5]
4 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
48% and 56%, with an average score of 52%.
Question One Solution
Part 1
Sensor selection factors:
Accuracy How precise the measurement is, compared to real
time value
Repeatability How often does the data come out to be the same
long- term stability how long the sensor would give an accurate
output
Resistance to chemical and physical contaminants
Material to be sensed ie metal
Size
Weight
Cost the price should be truly considered especially when an
issued budget is given
Effectiveness Capable of producing an intended result.
long term usage how long would the sensor give data
Response Time how fast the sensor would response to an issued
command.
What sensing distance is required to detect the target
Do any unique environmental conditions exist
Part 2
Input/Output (I/O) interface - input/output or I/O (or, informally, io or IO)
is the communication between an information processing system, such as
a control system, and the outside world, possibly a human or another
information processing system. Inputs are the signals or data received by
the system and outputs are the signals or data sent from it. The term can
also be used as part of an action; to "perform I/O" is to perform an input
or output operation. I/O devices are used by a human (or other system) to
communicate with a control system.
Examples of Digital (Discrete) output devices
Alarms
Control relays
Motor starters, solenoids
Part 3
Programmable Logic Controller:
A programmable logic controller, PLC, or programmable
controller is a digital computer used for automation of typically
industrial electromechanical processes, such as control of
machinery on factory assembly lines, PLCs are used in many
machines, in many industries. PLCs are designed for multiple
arrangements of digital and analog inputs and outputs,
extended temperature ranges, immunity to electrical noise, and
resistance to vibration and impact
Operation:
The processor makes decisions based on a ladder logic program
written by the user. In order to use the program properly, the
PLC must communicate with the various field devices it is
tasked with monitoring and controlling. It then compares the
actual conditions of the field devices with what the program
instructs them to do, and updates the output devices
accordingly.
Examples of use PLC in packaging, - line control, conveyor
control, machine control, flow, temperature control etc.
Part 4
SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) is a system for
remote monitoring and control that operates with coded
signals over communication channels (using typically one
communication channel per remote station).
It is a type of industrial control system (ICS). Industrial control
systems are computer-based systems that monitor and control
industrial processes that exist in the physical world. SCADA
systems historically distinguish themselves from other ICS
systems by being large-scale processes that can include
multiple sites, and large distances. These processes include
industrial, infrastructure, and facility-based processes, as
described below:
Industrial processes include those of manufacturing,
production, power generation, fabrication, and refining, and
may run in continuous, batch, repetitive, or discrete modes.
Examiners Report 2016 45
Question 2

Discuss the purpose of a control system and discuss with the aid of
schematics or sketches the difference between feed forward and
feedback control and provide an example of each within a packaging
operation [15]

List the advantages and disadvantages of both types of systems. [10]

15 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between

40% and 68%, with an average score of 55%.

Question Two Solution

Part 1
Aims of a Control system
Taking into account all of the above points there are two main aims of a
control system:
Suppressing the influence of external disturbances
Ensuring the stability of a process
Ensuring defined process outputs are achieved
Feedback control
Feedback control uses direct measurement of the controlled variable to
adjust the values of the manipulated variables. The figure below shows
the flow of information in this type of control.
Flow of information in Feed forward Control
The name feed forward control refers to the feeding forward of
information from the disturbances to the manipulated variable, which in
turn effects the controlled variable. It is also known as open loop or
predictive control. The controller predicts the effect of the disturbances
on the controlled variable and adjusts the manipulated accordingly.
List the advantages and disadvantages of both types of systems:
Advantages of Feed forward Control
The controller measures the disturbances entering the system
and anticipates the effect on the controlled variable. Thus the
controlled variable stays constant at a steady value and the
disturbance does not get the chance to enter the system.
Disadvantages of Feed forward Control
Since there is no direct measurement of the controlled variable,
if it happens to stray from the setpoint there is no corrective
action to eliminate the error.
You have to know all the disturbances which may enter the
system and be able to measure them
A good knowledge of the process model is required so that the
effects of the disturbances on the controlled variable are
known and the corrective action evaluated.

Flow of information in Feedback control

The name feedback control refers to the feeding back of information from
the controlled variable to the controller. It is also known as closed loop
control (note the closed loop in the flow of information)

Part 2

Advantages of feedback Control

The measured variable is the controlled variable and so you always know
what its value is.
It doesnt require any identification of measurement of the
disturbances and doesnt need to know how the process itself
works.
It works on the simple principle that if the measured or
controlled variable increases above the setpoint then the
controller changes the manipulated variable in such a sway to
make it go back down and vice versa.
Disadvantages of Feedback Control
The disturbance has to enter the system before corrective
action is taken. Hence not really suitable for a process where a
large unforeseen disturbance may effect it.
It is unsatisfactory for slow processes where the effect of the
action of the feedback controller takes a long time to happen.

Feed forward Control

Feed forward control uses direct measurement of the disturbances to

adjust the values of the manipulated variables. Figure 32 below shows the
flow of information in a feed forward control loop.

46 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL CERTIFICATE
EXAMINATIONS

Fundamentals of Brewing and Packaging of Beer General Certificate in Packaging (Beer)

FBPB Nov 2015 - May 2016 GCP Nov 2015- May 2016

The pass rate of 70% compares less favourably to the pass rate of 82% The pass rate of 60% was higher than the 56% from the same period last
from the same period last time. time.

Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
FBPB CF 4 8 3 0 15 GCP CAN 15 22 2 1 40
FBPB CASK 2 3 0 0 5 GCP KEG 3 3 4 0 10
FBPB Total 6 11 3 0 20 GCP NRB 23 26 16 2 67
GCP RB 43 30 13 2 88
Fundamentals of Distilling GCP All 10 18 2 0 30

FD Nov 2015- May 2016 GCP Total 94 99 37 5 235

The pass rate of 52% compares less favourably to the pass rate of 62% General Certificate in Distilling
from the same period last time.
The pass rate of 51% was the same as the 51% from the same period last
time.
Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
FD Total 12 11 2 0 25 GCD Nov 2015- May 2016

The Learning Material from both the FBPB and the FD qualifications can be Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
purchased in book form from the IBDs bookshop at
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/IBD GCD Cereal 60 66 14 2 142
GCD Grape 0 0 0 0 0
GCD Molasses 4 4 2 0 10
General Certificate in Brewing
GCD Total 60 70 16 2 172
GCB Nov 2015- May 2016
General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits)
The pass rate of 58% was up on 56% from the same period last time.
The pass rate of 67% was lower than the 84% from the same period last
time.
Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
GCB Mainstream 183 183 39 3 408 GCP(S) Nov 2015- May 2016
GCB Craft 83 115 31 3 232
GCB Total 266 298 70 6 640 Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
GCP(S) 10 10 6 4 30
An updated version of the General Certificate in Brewings Revision
Notes have been prepared by the GCB Examiners and is available to all
candidates. General Certificate in Malting

The pass rate of 71% was higher than the 64% from the same period last
time.

GCM Nov 2014- May 2015

Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total

GCM 10 17 6 1 34

Examiners Report 2016 47

 Successful Candidates Completion of Award

Congratulations to the following candidates for successfully completing the following awards in 2016.

Diploma of Brewing

Augustine Abugri Africa Sarunyoo Songkram Asia Pacific

Metiku Admasu Africa Dennis James Stewart Asia Pacific
Oluyomi Adodo Africa Martin Louis Swann Asia Pacific
Solange Maria Anjos Africa Udo van Deventer Asia Pacific
Lee Arild Africa Maria Bale International
Chantel Bok Africa Sander Bokelman International
Michael Botes Africa Stephen Borutta International
Riadh Bouroubi Africa Corey Campbell International
Goodlaw Danda Africa Steven Clare International
Babatunde Dawodu Africa Sam DeCamp International
Snqobizizwe Dlodlo Africa Joshua Deitner International
Michelle Fang Africa Jason Fears International
Kayode Farombi Africa Cameron Frigon International
Kirsten Francis Giddey Africa Theodore Gowan International
Wilson Gunje Africa Tameika Rachelle Grant International
Shalom Kaite Africa Ioannis Greveniotis International
Hubert Kinanga Africa Ian Harbage International
Pascal Kulimushi Africa Ewoud-Jan Hueting International
Chandapiwa Leteane Africa Matthew Insco International
Ghislain Mahambu Africa Canaan Khoury International
Christopher Mitchell Africa Kaylyn Kirkpatrick International
Glynnis Lynn Ann Moodly Africa Jeffrey Koebbe International
Lizzie Mutsago Africa Aremanda Krishna International
Andrisha Naidu Africa Christopher Lawrence International
Obakeng Molebogeng Celia Ntshudisane Africa Jessica McElvain International
Augustine Olayinka Ogunjobi Africa Andrew Mersch International
Ramasela Cynthia Papo Africa Mate Mihaly International
Sean Power Africa Thomas Mondor International
Fenias Leao Sebastiao Africa Dorota Myrczek International
Wade Stanton Africa Graydon Newman International
Joseph Tawanda Takayindisa Africa Kathryn Orr International
Tyronne Thaver Africa Dwight Andrew Preston International
Ulices Matias Zita Africa Ryder Randolph International
Phumlani Zwane Africa John Respess International
Peter James Bradley Asia Pacific Pascal Schagen International
Subhra Chowdhury Asia Pacific Kimberly Schoenberg International
Rebecca Gloria Crotty-Jones Asia Pacific James Scott International
Amul Ghimire Asia Pacific Lincoln Scott International
Arron Phillip Goodwin Asia Pacific John Szport International
Katie Jessup Asia Pacific Michelle Elze Van der Klauw International
Matthew Jeremy Kouw Asia Pacific Remco Van der Velde International
Vipul Kumar Asia Pacific Alex Whitehurst International
Carrie Mclachlan Asia Pacific Dan Wu International
Scott McLeod Asia Pacific Gary John Eddleston UK Great Northern
James Perrin Asia Pacific Samuel Joseph Russell UK Great Northern
Matthew Petrofes Asia Pacific Oliver Bird UK Midland
Wee Ann See Asia Pacific Trevor Cowley UK Midland

48 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 Christopher Gooch UK Midland Diploma of Packaging
Amy Elizabeth Millen UK Scottish
Scott Dominic Clement Abrey UK Southern Stephen Baron Africa
Matthew Robert Arens UK Southern Mbongeni Dube Africa
Edward Richard Bates UK Southern Waziri Hassan Jemedari Africa
Nthabiseng
Sean Peter Knight UK Southern
Bernadette
Sarah Marshall UK Southern
Mabataung Likate Africa
Kopano Mosweu Africa
Diploma of Distilling
Anthony Shamukuni Africa
Karen Lorraine Chadwick Asia Pacific Jesse Cartwright Asia Pacific
Laura Wilson Asia Pacific Jodie Ruth Murdoch Asia Pacific
Rajiv Devin Ragoonanan International Andrew Kevin Walklate Asia Pacific
Peter Barry Irish Petr Bilek International
Eoin Brennan Irish Paul Stol International
Aisling Burke Irish Steve Cuss UK Midland
Karen Cotter Irish
Master Brewer
Finbar Curran Irish
Danu Mac Mahon Irish
Astrid Elizabeth Bredenkamp Africa
Graeme Millar Irish
Letitia Hamman Africa
James O'Callaghan Irish
Warren Anthony Wiese Africa
Deirdre Mary O'Carroll Irish
Lindsay Matthew Crawford Asia Pacific
Katherine A Smart UK Midland
David Christopher Sopko UK Midland
Norma Angela Bruce UK Scottish
Thomas Spencer UK Midland
Amanda Judith Burke UK Scottish
Jack Palmer UK Scottish
Scott Harrison UK Scottish
Stuart Morrison UK Scottish
Neil Murphy UK Scottish
Derek Peggie UK Scottish
Graham Sewell UK Scottish
Isabella Wemyss UK Scottish
Nicholas Ross Wilson UK Scottish
Christopher Andrew Smart UK Southern

Examiners Report 2016 49

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

50 Institute of Brewing and Distilling