REPORT FROM THE EXAMINERS 2016 - Home - … · Report from the Chairman Page 7 . Master ... Kinshasa - Bralima (Heineken) Lubumbashi - Bralima (Heineken) Pointe Noire - BrasCo.(Heineken0

REPORT FROM THE EXAMINERS

2016

Qualifications

2 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

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

Examiners Report 2016 3

BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND EXAMINATIONS CENTRES

THE EXAMINERS

Chair of the IBD Board of Examiners – Angus Steven Diploma in Brewing

Module 1 David Cook Tobin Eppard Ian Smith Marc Schmitt

Module 2 Alastair Pringle George Ritchie Yahia Chabane Dawn Maskell Aldo Lentini

Module 3 Phil Worsley Gary Freeman Andrew Barker Jean-Michel Gualano Andre Dillman

Diploma in Distilling

Module 1 Douglas Murray Michelle Pizzi Jeremy Stephens

Module 2 Douglas Murray Graeme Walker

Module 3 Alan Wolstenholme Iain Campbell

Diploma in Packaging

Module1 Ruth Bromley Gavin Duffy Angus Steven Tracy Adie

Module 2 Gavin Duffy Robin Cooper Zane Barnes Angus Steven Dick Charlton

Module 3 Thomas Shellhammer Derek McKernan

Master Brewer Module1 Robert Illingworth Paul Jeffries

Module 2 Derek Orford Shiona Kamermans

Module 3 Andrew Mieleniewski Bob Pursley

Module 4 Robin Cooper Ian Bearpark

Module 5 Richard Westwood Jens Voigt

THE EXAM CENTRES

Algeria Alger - SARL Tango Heineken Australia Abbotsford - Carlton United Breweries 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 Botswana Gaborone - SABMiller

Cameroun Douala - Guinness Cameroun SA Canada Calgary AB - University of Calgary 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) Denmark Copenhagen - Scandinavian School of Brewing


Burundi Bujumbura - Brarudi (Heineken)

Dominica Roseau - University of West Indies

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

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 Kingshill VI - University of Virgin Islands Madison WI - University of Wisconsin-MBAA Mankato MN - Mankato Test Center Maryland MD - Frederick Community College Milwaukee WI - Miller Coors New York NY - Cambridge Business Institute Oregon OR - Oregon State University Portsmouth NH - Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. 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

Vietnam Binh Duong - SABMiller Ho Chi Min City - British Council Wales Magor – AB Inbev Zambia Lusaka - Zambian Breweries (SABMiller) Ndola - Zambian Breweries (SABMiller) Zimbabwe Bulawayo-Delta Beverages (SABMiller) Harare-Delta Beverages (SABMiller)


THE STATISTICS

Number of candidates who sat each module

Exam Module 2016 2015 2014

Diploma in Module 1 468 336 358

Brewing Module 2 298 269 338

Module 3 251 239 205

Pass in all modules 101 94 47


Distilling Module 2 54 29 35

Module 3 29 23 20



Packaging Module 2 29 41 23

Module 3 20 23 28


Exam Module 2016 2015 2014

Master Brewer Module 1 27 43 33

Module 2 25 25 16

Module 3 16 22 23

Module 4 22 15 22

Module 5 11 15 7


Percentage of candidates passing each module (average mark %)

Exam Module 2016 2015 2014

Diploma in Module 1 52% (43%) 65% (51%) 57% (46%)

Brewing Module 2 65% (48%) 56% (45%) 44% (41%)

Module 3 52% (45%) 23% (35%) 53% (46%)


Distilling Module 2 87% (57%) 45% (38%) 60% (48%)

Module 3 65% (50%) 61% (49%) 75% (58%)


Packaging Module 2 64% (54%) 67% (49%) 65% (57%)

Module 3 65% (57%) 61% (46%) 92% (62%)

Exam Module 2016 2015 2014

Master Brewer Module1 52% (55%) 51% (52%) 46% (52%)

Module 2 32% (50%) 56% (57%) 56% (53%)

Module 3 69% (57%) 46% (46%) 48% (51%)

Module 4 73% (55%) 73% (60%) 73% (58%)

Module 5 64% 87% 86%

Number of exams/modules entered for each qualification

1661

1890

2269

2770 2815

3033 3223

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

FD/FBPB

GCB/P/D/S

DB

DD

Dipl Pack

Mbrew

Mdistil

BD

TotalApplicants


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 – don’t 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.

http://www.ibd.org.uk/qualifications/examinations/

http://www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk/


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.

([email protected])


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 year’s 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 year’s 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 supplier’s 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 year’s 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 IBD’s Brewer & Distiller International magazine.


Question 4 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 (12°Plato). 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. 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.

Question 6 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 what’s 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.

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 candidate’s competence in the technical management of the beer process” and is very much about practical situations. It’s in each candidate’s 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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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 manufacturer’s 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 year’s 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.


Question 4

(i) Identify four categories of justification for capital expenditure and give an example of each.

(ii) For one category, choose a project and prepare a CAPEX justification to be submitted to the Finance Director which presents the arguments to get the funding approved.

Pleasingly the finance question was attempted by eighteen candidates this year – a most welcome development. Marks ranged from 8 to a creditable 18 with an average of 13. Generally, candidates could provide examples of cost saving, capacity increase, quality improvement or a legal / environmental justification but the justifications to convince the brewery’s Finance Director to approve the funding often lacked a proper introduction or discussion about the alternatives considered before proposing the project. Although many answers were sketchy and unlikely to result in approval, they often contained some good points and several candidates had clearly been through the process. Question 5

It has been decided to downsize the brewery as volumes are decreasing overall and there is demand for more variety of beers in smaller quantities ranging from 50 hl to 400 hl per month. i) How would the optimum brew length, brews per day and shift

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 week’s 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.

Question 6 (i) Explain the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which characterise

“World Class” maintenance performance. (ii) Describe options for organising engineering spares and materials

to support “World Class” maintenance. Ten candidates submitted answers to this question with marks ranging from a very poor 5 to 13 with an average of 10. 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 by several candidates, was not sufficient. The examiner was seeking a brief explanation (with quantification) of at least 12 KPIs (e.g. planned maintenance work >90%; breakdown work <3%; planned maintenance schedule compliance 100%; maintenance overtime <5%; equipment availability >90%; equipment productivity >95%; OEE >80% etc). Sadly very few answers included quantitative information. The second part of the question was not well answered. Very few candidates included many if any of the following: effective planning to ensure spares and materials are available in timely fashion; effective stock control; holding of strategic spares in house; plant supplier holding of spares; outsourcing of spares operation to experts; EDI between brewery engineering and key suppliers; standardisation of plant items and spares; philosophy of having key replacement whole items of equipment rather than time consuming strip and rebuild.


DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION

Module 1 – Materials and Wort

Grade No. % 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 performed at intake – these being suitable for evaluation of malted barley 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.


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 brewer’s 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.

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 Darcy’s Law: Q = -kA(ΔP) / µL Q units of volume per time K permeability of the medium A the cross sectional area to flow ΔP differential pressure µ 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.


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.

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 year’s 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 brewer’s yeast,

how they affect yeast, and the final beer. [6] ii) Give two examples where recombinant DNA technology has been

proposed to improve brewer’s 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 year’s 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.


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 candidate’s 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.

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 kräusening 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

Grade No. % A 1 0.4% B 21 8% C 51 20% D 56 22% E 68 27% F 33 13% G 21 8%

The following report attempts to provide candidates and tutors with summary feedback on examination performance and for future preparation the key requirements in answering each question. As a general comment albeit with some exceptions, a significant number of scripts continued to demonstrate poor preparation, inadequate exam technique and where required diagrams and illustrations were poorly drawn and annotated. Poor hand writing and grammar (some scripts virtually illegible) hampered marking and is not representative of competency and ability expected at this Diploma level. The message of previous years reminding candidates to “read “ and only answer the “question” is still unheeded in many scripts. Candidates should be reminded to ensure comply with the following:- i) Effective exam technique, particularly with respect to providing

concise and relevant wording and the benefit of a tabular framework for comparisons.

ii) Structure the answer to reflect the potential marks available. iii) Importance of reasonably legible hand writing and correct grammar. iv) DO start a new question on a new page. v) DO NOT to leave blank pages between questions. vi) Answers to be written in “INK” only, pencil are NOT acceptable. vii) Mark front page of the script with questions in the ordered answered. viii) Enter exam properly equipped with appropriate writing and colouring

implements, rule compass etc. Question 1 i) Describe with the aid of diagrams the construction process of a 50

litre stainless steel keg (excluding the extractor). Identify the grade of materials for construction. [10]

ii) Identify and describe the (in-line) and (off- line) processes for maintaining and checking keg integrity with respect to Quality, and Health and Safety. [10]

i) The answer should initially provide an annotated illustration/

diagram of a typical stainless steel keg to accurately identify the key parts and their function. For each component parts a table or description of the typical specifications of material of construction is required.( e.g. Top & Bottom Chimes - AISI 304 -special hardening- typically 1.7/2.00 mm thickness). The expected answer should then proceed to concisely describe sequentially, each stage of manufacture and assembly (e.g. from coiled metal to finished and tested product) including the specific welding activities involved. Marks are contributed where candidates were able to demonstrate metallurgic knowledge and hence reason of material choice/application for ASIN 316, 314 & 304.

ii) Candidates describing in-line process checks in a manner that aligned with the keg packaging process generally demonstrated logical and concise knowledge. However, reference to the use of Keg data logger equipment, Port hole kegs and Detergent strength were a missing in many papers. Answers given for off line processes were typically limited in scope as candidates made reference to extractor servicing only, omitting the need for bacteria sampling/analysis for soiling of the external washer for internal keg “stoning” and cleanliness inspection of a selection of the keg population . Some candidates elected to answer with respect to the keg manufacturing process only rather than the packaging process.

Question 2 i) Compare the potential impact on quality between the short tube

non-returnable bottle (NRB) and can filling processes, and for each list the necessary actions to maximise product shelf life. [12]

ii) Identify the typical in-line and off-line instrumentation equipment and the methodology for measurement of small package dissolved oxygen? [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 for comparison. This to be followed by notes (ideally tabular) which describe those process features which maximise quality, especially shelf life and O₂ exclusion. The notes need to be factual to support the comparisons i.e. (Top/entry area Can >> Bottle ca 7:1)., physical properties (Metal vs Glass) and process differences (Crowning vs Seaming).

ii) The starting point of this question should invite a statement to

show knowledge that “In line” measures PRODUCT DO₂ and “Off line” is a measure of TOTAL IN PACKAGE DO₂ (TIPO). This is to be followed by appropriate sketches and explanation to describe the function by which the 3* typical technologies operate, their calibration and application for both ON & OFF line functions. (*E.g Galvanic, Polarmetric & Luminosence).Many candidates failed to demonstrate sufficient comprehension of the basic distinction between ON & OFF - line measurement and the fundamental elements of electrolytic action by which measurement can be derived.

Question 3 With respect to glass bottle packaging materials:- a) Briefly define the function of, and associated materials used for,

each of the following:- - Primary packaging. [4] - Secondary packaging. [2] - Tertiary packaging. [2]

b) Outline the significance and purpose of glass bottle specifications to ensure packaging quality and compliance. [5]

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. [7]

a) The syllabus provides concise definitions for Primary, Secondary and

Tertiary packing and it was disappointing to not find this reflected in a significant proportion of the scripts. A high proportion of candidates were unable to demonstrate a clear distinction between the function of each type. Unnecessary statements relating to Cans, Kegs and Casks were also evident, sadly NOT required as the question is specifically with respect to “Glass Bottle”.

b) “Outline” implies expressing concisely only the dimensional, material

quality, handling and inspection processes significant to the bottle product and packaging process. A number of candidates failed to answer this part in preference to (a) and an attempt on (c)

c) Many candidates attempted to answer this question by merely listing

a series of individual actions e.g. (“Training required for operators”) and hence failed to demonstrate an understanding that it is the POLICY drives / determines necessary action within a business. Surprisingly only 1 candidate in 181 mentioned the word “sustainability” as a policy matter and only a few made mention of the principles surrounding ISO or Process Control as a policy issue or requirement.

Nb:- POLICY is generally defined :- A set of ideas or plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people or business organisation


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 10°C, 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] Henry’s Constant for CO2 at 10°C is 116 x 103 kPa molefraction-1 Standard atmospheric pressure is 1.01 bar absolute 1bar = 105Pa Density of water at 10°C = 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 CO₂ and N₂. However, the question seeks to call on a candidate’s knowledge of CO₂ and N₂ 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 125°C).

𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 = 𝑵𝑵𝒔𝒔 − 𝑵𝑵𝒗𝒗𝒗𝒗ρ 𝐠𝐠

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 ρ = 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 100ºC, 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 100ºC = 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 φ = 0.002 Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m s-2 Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa

Darcy’s friction equation: 2

f udL4P ρφ=∆

Where:

fP∆ = pressure loss in pipe due to friction

φ = pipe friction factor L = pipe length d = pipe diameter u = wort flow velocity within the pipe ρ = 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 = 10ºC Final detergent temperature = 80ºC 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 65°C:-

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.


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 B 9 21 C 8 18 D 16 36 E 6 13 F 2 5 G 2 5

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 excellent papers detailing not only short wets and long air rests, but also the need to remove oxygen-depleting micro-organisms and minerals, reasonable temperatures, timings, and target moistures.

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]

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.


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.


Module 1 – Materials and Fermentable Wort (Molasses)

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. Question 1 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]

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.

Question 5 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 6 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.


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

(Pass) A 1 2

B 10 19

C 19 35

D 17 31

(Fail) E 6 12

F 1 2

G 0 0

Performance by question

Question Answered by Passed by Pass rate %

1 43 30 70

2 33 24 73

3 43 36 84

4 33 21 64

5 43 18 42

6 34 21 62

7 48 38 79

8 47 30 64

Question 1 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. 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.

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] 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. The best answers included comment on the ease of handling and any health and safety aspects of handling each type. They also included a brief discussion on the financial impact on delivery cost of each type. Candidates lost marks by concentrating on one or two types and not covering the three types mentioned in the question. Question 4 Describe the key components and steps required to operate a cleaning-in-place (CIP) regime to minimise the level of spoilage organisms for storage and transfer of liquid yeast and for a fermentation vessel. [20] 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 providing a diagram that was clearly labelled used time wisely. However 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 commenting on the difficulty / ease of cleaning of different materials of construction. Some answers used only steam to clean the fermentation vessel. This is acceptable but the question still required detail on how the steam would be used and also any rinsing required before steaming along with how the vessel is cooled prior to refilling. Question 5 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 this action on the congeners in the spirit, giving named examples. [20] 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 6 a) Discuss the impact on congener distribution and spirit quality when

a rectifying column is increased from 30 to 40 plates. [10] b) Discuss how a distiller can remove isoamyl alcohol from a rectifying

column, and describe the impact on product quality and still operation. [10]

34 candidates attempted this question. The average mark gained was 11.1. Part “a” required a knowledge of the distribution of ethanol and other compounds within a column still. Then discussing the impact of providing more plates and reflux potential. Good answers included changes in ethanol strength within the column, the change in relative solubility because of this and the impact on quality. Several candidates only discussed a “coffey” still but for full marks all distillation types should be mentioned and the greater potential to remove the separated higher alcohols more easily via a side stream. Part “b” answers mostly contained an acceptable diagram of a removal system. Marks were lost by not giving 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.

Question 8 a) Describe the laboratory facilities required to conduct organoleptic

(nosing) tests on spirit. [10] b) Discuss the use of both difference and descriptive tests in

evaluating spirit quality. [10]

This question was also popular with 47 candidates answering it. The average score was 10.5. This is a disappointing level as the 10 marks on offer in part “a” should have been easy to gain. A list of equipment and a brief comment on why it is required was all that was needed to gain the marks. Marks could be gained for including the environment such as a quiet, clean, well light room or for describing different sample glass types or keeping different sets of glassware for different products. Part “b” when answered, it looked like some candidates ran out of time to answer fully, did not give the level of detail required to gain the 10 marks on offer. The question also required a discussion on the merit of each test not just a statement on what both tests are.

Module 3 – Process Technology General comments and overview In all there were 29 submitted scripts with 19 candidates achieving a pass grade to give a pass rate of 65%. This is higher than last year (60.9%) and but lower than the 75% who passed in 2014. There was only 1 A pass but 4 B passes. The D (pass) and E (fail) grade boundary accounted for 45% of the candidates with 24% (D) and 21% (E). Overall pass/fail rates and grades

Grade Number of candidates % of total

(Pass) A 1 3

B 4 14

C 7 24

D 7 24

(Fail) E 6 21

F 2 7

G 2 7

Analysis of questions which were answered and the corresponding pass rate was interesting. Question 8 was answered by all of the candidates 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 candidates (26) but only 30.8% passed. This might not be noteworthy in itself but the fact that Q1 is related to continuous distillation, means my old concern that many candidates are not seriously covering the entire syllabus remains. Performance by question

Question Answered by Passed by Passed % 1 26 8 31 2 27 19 70 3 20 15 75 4 20 5 25 5 14 7 50 6 9 3 33 7 28 10 36 8 19 16 55


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 do’nut” 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 100ºC 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 100ºC = 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.


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. Raul’s 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, Bernoulli’s 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 = 10ºC Final detergent temperature = 80ºC 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 65°C:-

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:

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 wasn’t 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 wasn’t 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.

b) A straight forward calculation which most candidates completed correctly, at just over 44⁰C. 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 ⁰C to the equation Q+uA∆T and dividing that into the total heat transferred resulted in a correct answer of 38 plates required.

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 % Grade A 0 0 B 2 4 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]

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 the in-house elements of production which meant that the average score for this section was often less than half of the marks actually available. The final section was designed to allow the candidate to explain how the 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.


Question 1 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 candidate’s 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. For the second part of the question candidates needed to explain the different storage requirements for the three chosen materials. Half of the candidates struggled with this part of the question with storage details provided being very limited. Details should have included storage locations, hygiene, temperatures and humidity conditions. The final section was very poorly answered with the average score in this section being only one third of the available marks. Good answers walked through the bottling line and explained which checks were undertaken at each machine, what standards were used as the baseline comparison for the check and the including the frequency of these being undertaken. Question 2 Describe the technical and marketing functions of packaging materials. [10] Explain how the marketing functions will differ between small pack and large pack. [5] Using a two piece can as the example, explain the various on-line production checks which are undertaken to ensure that all of the technical functions of the can have been met during the packaging operation, including where these are carried out on the line and their frequency. [10] This question was designed to test the candidates understanding of the technical and marketing functions of the packaging materials. The first section was generally well answered by the majority of candidates, with some clear definitions of the technical (containment, measuring, beer quality) and marketing functions (branding, legal declarations, etc) being provided. However, the second section of the question was poorly answered – with a number of candidates not recognising that large pack referred to either keg or cask beer. This question should have covered the different marketing requirements for selling the beer on a shop shelf, rather than selling beer through a dispense system in a bar. 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 production line. Unfortunately a similar number of candidates struggled with this part of the question and only four candidates provided a reasonable answer which covered the checks at each machine, the standards to verify against and the frequency of these checks.

Unit 2 – Beer Preparation Assignment This assignment is designed for you to demonstrate knowledge of your site’s 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

Grade No %

A 16 25

B 14 22

C 16 25

D 12 18.8

E 1 1.5

F 2 3

G 3 4.7

The majority of candidates answered the assignment to a high level. Better answers included labelled pictures/diagrams/SCADA images for section 1 and explained each stage of the process. Section two needed to link the listed product parameters to consumer experience to get full marks and also provide specification examples. Finally, the better candidates in section three provided a clear justification of both given suggestions. Short Answer Section This section of the examination paper focused on determining the candidate’s breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter, and excluded 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 Candidates sat the exam. The average scores were 8.1 (54%), ranging from 0 to 14 out of 15 marks. Common questions not well answered were related to filter and processing aids, sterile filtration and cleaning requirements. Long Answer Section Performance by question

Question Answered by Passed by Passed % 1 20 11 55 2 26 17 65

Question 1 Three possible ways to move beer from bright beer tank to the filler are as follows:

1. Direct from BBT 2. Via a buffer tank 3. Via a flash pasteurizer

Describe the key requirements for each of the above that will ensure product quality is not compromised. [9]


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 it’s 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 candidate’s 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 candidate’s 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.


Performance by question


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.

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 Performance by question


Question 1 Draw a typical returnable bottle line layout highlighting the function of each piece of equipment. [7] 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 is maintained and any process parameters associated with the equipment. [14] Draw a ‘V’ Graph of this bottle line highlighting the potential running speeds for each piece of equipment based on a filler speed of 800 bottles/minute. [4] 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. The better candidates sketched a drawing of a returnable bottling line and highlighted every piece of equipment and the function of that equipment. 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 regime and the process parameters and critical settings for this machine. Marks were awarded equally for each. Most candidates missed the opportunity to explain the critical parameters associated with the machine. The 3rd part of the question required a simple ‘V’ graph with the machines in the correct order based on the slowest machine ( usually the filler) at the bottom of the curve and then extending out to the other machines with a 5-10% increase in running speed for each. Question 2 Describe five different types of secondary packaging which may be used for packaging either glass bottles or cans and the packaging and financial reasons for using the package type in each case. [10] For a bottle or can line choose one type of secondary packaging and using diagrams describe the packaging equipment required, the principal features of the packaging operation and the quality assurance measures which are in place to ensure a robust pack. [15] 10 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 2 and 17, with an average score of 9.7. 30% of candidates answering this question passed. With a few exceptions this question was not very well answered. For the first part candidates were expected to list 5 examples of secondary packaging (eg cartons, trays etc ) and for each one describe their suitability and ease of use on a packaging line and the cost impact of using one type over another. The better answers did this and highlighted likely costs and ease of operation but some candidates failed to answer these parts of the question. For the second part of the question the marks were split evenly between the chosen packer and its functionality , how it operated and the quality assurance in place. Straightforward explanations of what it does, how it does it and any QA checks to ensure pack integrity would have received enough marks to pass the question

Module 2: General comments and overview Whilst 40 candidates started the exam year this year, only 28 completed 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 to grow outside of Europe. In this Module, the short answer questions were generally well answered, but difficulties were experienced in the quality of some of the long answer questions, with candidates not able to demonstrate the application of their knowledge and experience into the questions. Overall pass/fail rates and grades

Passed No % Grade

A 0 0 B 5 25 C 3 15 D 5 25

Failed 7 35 Total 20

Unit 1 – Quality Assignment This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understands the key pasteurisation quality measures, and, cleaning and hygiene procedures and standards used and applied on a tunnel pasteuriser installed on your packaging line.[If your site does not have a tunnel pasteuriser, you will need to arrange attendance at an appropriate location.] For your selected beer packaging bottle or can line tunnel pasteuriser, outline the most likely reasons for (a) under/over pasteurisation and (b) dirty and blocked/slimed-up pasteuriser water spray systems, tanks and piping. [4] For the reasons tabled, identify the most appropriate methods of prevention, and what key process monitoring and quality analysis checks should be used to manage pasteurisation performance for optimum and consistent pasteurised beer quality. You are also required to identify and summarise the key procedures, standards and practices used to monitor and manage pasteuriser hygiene and cleanliness. [10] Identify, list and clarify any improvements that could be introduced on your line to improve: (a) pasteuriser P.U. performance, and, (b) pasteuriser hygiene cleanliness. [6] You are encouraged to provide and include supporting pasteuriser quality analysis and process monitoring examples, related key performance indicators, and, pasteuriser hygiene checks, cleaning and water treatment criteria and procedures, and prevention/management examples. Assignment Performance

Grade No % A 2 5 B 5 13 C 7 18 D 9 23 E 7 18 F 7 18 G 2 5


40 Students registered for this assignment, of which one candidate was granted permission to carry over last year’s 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 candidate’s 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 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 % 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 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 zero accidents; near zero quality defects; near zero lost time; near 100% 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.


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

B 5 15.2 C 8 24.2 D 8 24.2 E 5 15.2 F 1 3 G 3 9

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 candidate’s 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.

Long Answer Section Performance by question

Question Answered by

Passed by Passed %

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] Annual output = 600,000 hls One keg size = 50 litres 48 week operation 5 day operation of 2 x 8 hour shifts. Line efficiency = 70% 8 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between 4 and 22, with an average score of 12.8. 62% of candidates answering this 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 brewery’s 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 D’Arcy 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]


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.

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 Give two examples of each of the following four ingredient groups in a soft drink:- [8] a) acids b) preservatives c) antioxidants d) intense sweeteners Explain fully and precisely the role of these four ingredient groups in a non-carbonated soft drink. [17] 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 non-carbonated soft drink. Of the nine candidates who answered this question, all scored between 50 and 100% marks which proved that they were quite familiar with the examples of ingredients asked for. However, when it came to giving a full and precise description of the role of each group of ingredients, only 7 scored above 50%. Module 3: General Comments Whilst 24 candidates started the exam year this year, 20 completed the full module assignment submissions and examination, which reflects the normal lower drop off rate, as most candidates use this as their final module of the Diploma. The increased B and C scores on this assignment again reflect the standard of the candidates at this stage in the Diploma, as well as tending to indicate a strong engineering background knowledge – often seen within the packaging areas. Unit 3.1 proved to be the most challenging for candidates this year – a sign that the candidate’s interaction with the broader business areas is not as strong as would be expected at this level. Overall pass/fail rates and grades

Passed No % Grade

A 0 0 B 5 25 C 3 15 D 5 25

Failed 7 35 Total 20

Unit 1 – Resource Management Assignment This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the role of plant maintenance in the overall operational performance of a packaging line. Describe the maintenance policy for your packaging operation. [3] Explain how maintenance is currently carried out and the philosophical basis for this approach. Provide details to illustrate the effectiveness of the maintenance (this could include for example plant availability, line efficiency / OEE, maintenance costs per unit of output, safety performance, quality performance, spares strategy, operator / technician / craftsmen ratios etc). [6] Carry out a gap analysis to compare your maintenance performance to “World Class”. [6] Draw conclusions and make recommendations for future maintenance policy. [5]

Assignment Performance

Grade No %

A 10 45

B 5 23

C 5 23

D 1 4.5

E 1 4.5

F 0 0

G 0 0

22 candidates tendered submissions for this assignment, achieving an average score of 15, with the range of scores from 9 to a 19. The best submissions included diagrams, graphs and photographs. Two candidates produced virtual model submissions but, as the scores demonstrate, the majority of submissions were good. Several candidates’ submissions were far too high on wordcount e.g. 3,600 or 4,000! A number of candidates were unable to demonstrate a clear understanding of “World Class” maintenance performance, simply explaining the philosophy. The examiner was seeking a significant quantitative list of at least 12 KPIs (e.g. planned maintenance work >90%; breakdown work <3%; planned maintenance schedule compliance 100%; maintenance overtime <5% etc). In terms of future maintenance policy, one candidate pleasingly mentioned how to improve prevention through better design and procurement. However, there was little mention of life cycle costing in seeking higher inherent reliability. The examiner was disappointed that one candidate was not allowed to provide figures for his/her packaging line MTBF, MTTR, breakdowns etc which would have greatly aided that section of the submission. Short Answer Section 20 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 6.5, with the scores ranging from 1 to 11. Q1 (environmental aspects) was the best answered question in Section A whilst surprisingly Q3 (impact on the environment of burning fossil fuels) was least well answered – “carbon foot-printing” being the answer sought by the examiner. For Q4 (two systems for monitoring H & S performance), too many candidates simply gave examples without classifying them under “Active” and “Reactive” systems. Finally Q7, “Preventative maintenance work which is triggered by knowledge of the equipment obtained from a regular or continuous monitoring” is a definition of “condition based maintenance” which too few candidates recognized. Long Answer Section Performance by question


Question 1 Describe the cost benefit hierarchy for achieving water savings. [8] Explain how the cost benefit hierarchy can be used to provide a structured approach to a water use efficiency strategy. [17]


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 “Auditing and Reviewing Performance”. Unit 2 – Fluid Mechanics Assignment This assignment was designed to show the candidate’s understanding of beer carbonation.

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 without including units does not allow the examiner to determine where 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 pool’s 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 kg·m-3 Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m·s-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 0°C containing 2.7 vol/vol of CO2 (at STP) is fed to a filler bowl and in transit it warms to 5°C. Determine the pressure the filler bowl must be held at in order to keep the CO2 in solution. [6] Henry’s constants for CO2: Temperature Henry’s 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 g·L-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 Henry’s 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 Henry’s 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]


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

Grade No % A 3 19 B 6 38 C 2 13 D 4 25 E 1 6 F 0 0 G 0 0

Sixteen candidates attempted this section and 15 passed with an average passing score of 71% correct. The examiner was looking for candidates to start by presenting a clean, potentially annotated schematic of a refrigeration plant that included cooling load and heat reject temperatures in and out, compressor suction and discharge pressures, liquid refrigerant temperatures, etc. Nearly all submissions included nice diagrams and in many cases these were taken from existing engineering diagrams or HMI screens, which was entirely appropriate. This was the part of the assignment where nearly everyone got full marks. The second part involved defining and then calculating the COP of the system. In short, the COP is a measure of efficiency that identifies how much cooling effect is obtained per amount of work performed by the compressor. And, it should be easy to calculate by simply using the refrigerant properties on the high and low sides of the system. However, there were some creative approaches to defining and calculating this value. The third section involved carrying out an audit of the refrigeration system. The examiner was looking for faults and/or areas of improvement in the refrigeration system, sensors and/or control. The last part focused on conclusions and was the most variable in terms of performance. The stellar assignments had brief costs and ROI calculations for improvements to the refrigeration system while the poor submissions either did not touch on specific improvement or failed to justify them with any rigor. Short Answer Section Twenty candidates attempted this section and 16 passed with an average passing score of 76% correct. The concept of latent versus sensible heat was described correctly by most candidates, but many had difficulty picking values from a steam table to carry out a simple calculation. Diagramming co-current exchange was easy for some but a challenge for others. Many had difficulty describing temperature’s effect on beer density, which has its maximum at roughly 3.5 - 4.0°C and is therefore lower above and below this point (not higher as some described). Most could identify heat exchanger selection for different applications. Long Answer Section Performance by question

Question Answered by Passed by Passed %

1 12 11 92

2 7 6 86

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] Beyond the the flash pasteurizer described above, list three additional examples of where plate heat exchangers are used in the packaging hall, brewery or utilities plant. [3] Thirteen candidates chose this question and 11 passed with an average score of 76%. The two that did not perform well were not close to passing, averaging only 44%. Candidates attempting this question appeared, for the most part, prepared to discuss heat exchange, plate heat exchangers and pasteurization equipment. The question began by asking candidates to draw a plate heat exchanger (PHE) used to flash pasteurize beer. Many of the candidate 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 more than half marks. The examiner was also looking for important components such as temperature sensors (and appropriate locations) and feedback to valving on process streams as well as booster pumps and back pressure valves to prevent gas breakout. Most candidates were able to successfully describe advantages and disadvantages of PHE’s, although many failed to mention long gasketing (and the potential for leaking) as the general weakness of this type of heat exchanger. Nearly all were able to identify other examples where PHE’s are used in the brewery, packaging hall or utilities. Question 2 With the aid of a diagram describe the basic operations of an ideal vapour-compression refrigeration cycle and explain how it can be adopted as a primary refrigerant system for a packaging operation. On your diagram note the properties of the refrigerant as it moves throughout the system. [14] Glycol with a specific heat of 3.0 kJ·kg-1·K-1 is flowing at 2 kg·s-1 and is being cooled from 0°C to -4°C using a single stage vapour-compression 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] What does the coefficient of performance describe about the refrigeration system and how can it be increased? [3] Seven candidates chose this question and 6 passed with an average score of 71%. The one that did not perform well scored 44%. In general, the candidates did well on this question and demonstrated their knowledge of refrigeration. The first part of the question involved diagramming a refrigeration system and discussing the state of the refrigerant as it moved throughout the system. This was answered well in general, but many candidates failed to answer the final item, which was 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 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 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 performance. COP is a measure of performance and it can be increased by reducing the work performed by the compressor (lowering compressor pressure) and increasing the pressure of the evaporator (warmer cooling temperature). It can also be aided by subcooling the refrigerant before expansion.


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.


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 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 doesn’t require any identification of measurement of the disturbances and doesn’t 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.

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.


FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS Fundamentals of Brewing and Packaging of Beer FBPB Nov 2015 - May 2016 The pass rate of 70% compares less favourably to the pass rate of 82% from the same period last time.

Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total

FBPB CF 4 8 3 0 15

FBPB CASK 2 3 0 0 5

FBPB Total 6 11 3 0 20

Fundamentals of Distilling FD Nov 2015- May 2016 The pass rate of 52% compares less favourably to the pass rate of 62% from the same period last time.


FD Total 12 11 2 0 25

The Learning Material from both the FBPB and the FD qualifications can be purchased in book form from the IBD’s bookshop at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/IBD General Certificate in Brewing GCB Nov 2015- May 2016

The pass rate of 58% was up on 56% from the same period last time.


GCB Mainstream 183 183 39 3 408

GCB Craft 83 115 31 3 232

GCB Total 266 298 70 6 640

An updated version of the General Certificate in Brewing’s Revision Notes have been prepared by the GCB Examiners and is available to all candidates.

General Certificate in Packaging (Beer) GCP Nov 2015- May 2016 The pass rate of 60% was higher than the 56% from the same period last time.


GCP CAN 15 22 2 1 40

GCP KEG 3 3 4 0 10

GCP NRB 23 26 16 2 67

GCP RB 43 30 13 2 88

GCP All 10 18 2 0 30

GCP Total 94 99 37 5 235

General Certificate in Distilling The pass rate of 51% was the same as the 51% from the same period last time.

GCD Nov 2015- May 2016


GCD Cereal 60 66 14 2 142

GCD Grape 0 0 0 0 0

GCD Molasses 4 4 2 0 10

GCD Total 60 70 16 2 172

General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits) The pass rate of 67% was lower than the 84% from the same period last time.

GCP(S) Nov 2015- May 2016


GCP(S) 10 10 6 4 30 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


GCM 10 17 6 1 34


Successful Candidates – Completion of Award

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

Diploma of Brewing

Augustine Abugri Africa

Metiku Admasu Africa

Oluyomi Adodo Africa

Solange Maria Anjos Africa

Lee Arild Africa

Chantel Bok Africa

Michael Botes Africa

Riadh Bouroubi Africa

Goodlaw Danda Africa

Babatunde Dawodu Africa

Snqobizizwe Dlodlo Africa

Michelle Fang Africa

Kayode Farombi Africa

Kirsten Francis Giddey Africa

Wilson Gunje Africa

Shalom Kaite Africa

Hubert Kinanga Africa

Pascal Kulimushi Africa

Chandapiwa Leteane Africa

Ghislain Mahambu Africa

Christopher Mitchell Africa

Glynnis Lynn Ann Moodly Africa

Lizzie Mutsago Africa

Andrisha Naidu Africa

Obakeng Molebogeng Celia Ntshudisane Africa

Augustine Olayinka Ogunjobi Africa

Ramasela Cynthia Papo Africa

Sean Power Africa

Fenias Leao Sebastiao Africa

Wade Stanton Africa

Joseph Tawanda Takayindisa Africa

Tyronne Thaver Africa

Ulices Matias Zita Africa

Phumlani Zwane Africa

Peter James Bradley Asia Pacific

Subhra Chowdhury Asia Pacific

Rebecca Gloria Crotty-Jones Asia Pacific

Amul Ghimire Asia Pacific

Arron Phillip Goodwin Asia Pacific

Katie Jessup Asia Pacific

Matthew Jeremy Kouw Asia Pacific

Vipul Kumar Asia Pacific

Carrie Mclachlan Asia Pacific

Scott McLeod Asia Pacific

James Perrin Asia Pacific

Matthew Petrofes Asia Pacific

Wee Ann See Asia Pacific

Sarunyoo Songkram Asia Pacific

Dennis James Stewart Asia Pacific

Martin Louis Swann Asia Pacific

Udo van Deventer Asia Pacific

Maria Bale International

Sander Bokelman International

Stephen Borutta International

Corey Campbell International

Steven Clare International

Sam DeCamp International

Joshua Deitner International

Jason Fears International

Cameron Frigon International

Theodore Gowan International

Tameika Rachelle Grant International

Ioannis Greveniotis International

Ian Harbage International

Ewoud-Jan Hueting International

Matthew Insco International

Canaan Khoury International

Kaylyn Kirkpatrick International

Jeffrey Koebbe International

Aremanda Krishna International

Christopher Lawrence International

Jessica McElvain International

Andrew Mersch International

Mate Mihaly International

Thomas Mondor International

Dorota Myrczek International

Graydon Newman International

Kathryn Orr International

Dwight Andrew Preston International

Ryder Randolph International

John Respess International

Pascal Schagen International

Kimberly Schoenberg International

James Scott International

Lincoln Scott International

John Szport International

Michelle Elze Van der Klauw International

Remco Van der Velde International

Alex Whitehurst International

Dan Wu International

Gary John Eddleston UK Great Northern

Samuel Joseph Russell UK Great Northern

Oliver Bird UK Midland

Trevor Cowley UK Midland


Christopher Gooch UK Midland

Amy Elizabeth Millen UK Scottish

Scott Dominic Clement Abrey UK Southern

Matthew Robert Arens UK Southern

Edward Richard Bates UK Southern

Sean Peter Knight UK Southern

Sarah Marshall UK Southern Diploma of Distilling

Karen Lorraine Chadwick Asia Pacific

Laura Wilson Asia Pacific

Rajiv Devin Ragoonanan International

Peter Barry Irish

Eoin Brennan Irish

Aisling Burke Irish

Karen Cotter Irish

Finbar Curran Irish

Danu Mac Mahon Irish

Graeme Millar Irish

James O'Callaghan Irish

Deirdre Mary O'Carroll Irish

Katherine A Smart UK Midland

Norma Angela Bruce UK Scottish

Amanda Judith Burke 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

Diploma of Packaging

Stephen Baron Africa

Mbongeni Dube Africa

Waziri Hassan Jemedari Africa Nthabiseng Bernadette Mabataung Likate Africa

Kopano Mosweu Africa

Anthony Shamukuni Africa

Jesse Cartwright Asia Pacific

Jodie Ruth Murdoch Asia Pacific

Andrew Kevin Walklate Asia Pacific

Petr Bilek International

Paul Stol International

Steve Cuss UK Midland Master Brewer

Astrid Elizabeth Bredenkamp Africa

Letitia Hamman Africa

Warren Anthony Wiese Africa

Lindsay Matthew Crawford Asia Pacific

David Christopher Sopko UK Midland

Thomas Spencer UK Midland

Jack Palmer UK Scottish


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

REPORT FROM THE EXAMINERS 2016 - Home - … · Report from the Chairman Page 7 . Master ... Kinshasa - Bralima (Heineken) Lubumbashi - Bralima (Heineken) Pointe Noire - BrasCo.(Heineken0

Documents