Qualifications

REPORT FROM
THE EXAMINERS
2013

The Master Brewer, Diploma, General Certificate and Fundamental

Examination Reports in one handy volume.
 Table of Contents

Board of Examiners and Examination Centres Page 3

Statistics Page 6

Award Winners Page 7

Report from the Chairman of the Board of Examiners Page 8

Master Brewer Report Page 9

Diploma in Brewing Page 17

Diploma in Distilling Page 24

Diploma in Beverage Packaging Page 34

Fundamental and General Certificate Examinations Page 39

List of Successful Candidates Page 40

2 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND EXAMINATIONS CENTRES 2013

THE EXAMINERS

Chair of the IBD Board of Examiners David Quain

Diploma in Module 1 David Cook Master Brewer Module1 Robert Illingworth

Brewing Robert McCaig Ian Smith
Ian Smith Module 2 Jeremy Stead
Marc Schmitt Steve Curtis
Module 2 Alastair Pringle Module 3 Michael Partridge
Tobin Eppard Steve Curtis
George Ritchie Module 4 Robin Cooper
Jacques Mayance Ian Bearpark
Module 3 Brian Eaton Module 5 Richard Westwood
Andrew Barker Jens Voigt

Diploma in Module 1 Douglas Murray General GCB Colin McCrorie

Distilling Michelle Pizzi Certificates Robin Cooper
George Bathgate Jeremy Stead
Module 2 Iain Campbell Dick Murton
GCP Robert Illingworth
Module 3 Alan Wolstenholme
GCD Alan Wolstenholme

Diploma in Module1 Ruth Bromley

Packaging Roland Folz
Gavin Duffy
Angus Steven
Module 2 Gavin Duffy
Robin Cooper
Zane Barnes
Angus Steven
Dick Charlton
Module 3 Thomas Shellhammer

THE EXAM CENTRES

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

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

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

Botswana Gaborone - SABMiller Denmark Copenhagen - Scandinavian School of Brewing

Burundi Bujumbura - Brarudi (Heineken) Dominica Roseau - University of West Indies

Examiners Report 2013 3

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

Our thanks to all the breweries, distilleries, educational establishments and industry locations that hosted IBD examinations during 2012. A
total of 182 centres were made available for examination candidates across 60 countries, up on last years numbers of 45 countries hosting
139 centres.

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

Examiners Report 2013 5

THE STATISTICS

Number of candidates who sat each module

Exam Module 2013 2012 2011 Exam Module 2013 2012 2011
Diploma in Module 1 410 287 262 Master Brewer Module1 34 41 41
Brewing Module 2 287 209 228 Module 2 40 43 35
Module 3 186 174 147 Module 3 27 25 27
Pass in all modules 107 98 95 Module 4 18 16 12
Diploma in Module 1 38 21 23 Module 5 16 10 10
Distilling Module 2 31 14 29 Pass in all modules 15 6 5
Module 3 16 20 18
Pass in all modules 11 14 13
Diploma in Module1 32 38 12
Packaging Module 2 33 2 14
Module 3 1 9 8
Pass in all modules 1 6 3

Percentage of candidates passing each module (average mark %)

Exam Module 2013 2012 2011 Exam Module 2013 2012 2011
Diploma in Module 1 71% (50%) 61% (46%) 52% (44%) Master Brewer Module1 56% (51%) 51% (54%) 68% (55%)
Brewing Module 2 53% (43%) 50% (42%) 50% (43%) New Syllabus Module 2 55% (53%) 58% (52%) 46% (53%)
Module 3 64% (52%) 70% (55%) 65% (52%) Module 3 48% (51%) 60% (59%) 48% (52%)
Diploma in Module 1 89% (58%) 86% (62%) 71% (52%) Module 4 61% (52%) 88% (61%) 75% (55%)
Distilling Module 2 58% (46%) 71% (55%) 66% (49%) Module 5 100% 90% 100%
Module 3 81% (56%) 75% (56%) 83% (54%)
Diploma in Module1 69% (58%)* 87%* 60%
Packaging Module 2 82% (56%)* 100% 83%
Module 3 100% (-) 78% 100%
*Revised Syllabus

Number of exams/modules entered for each qualification

3000
2724

2500 Fundamentals
2269
General Certificates
1890
2000
Diploma in Packaging
1661
Diploma in Distilling
1500
Diploma in Brewing
Master Brewer
1000
Total Applicants

500

0
2010 2011 2012 2013

6 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

AWARD WINNERS 2013

Award Winners for Examination Year 2013 were as follows:

MASTER BREWER: IBD Section

James S Hough Award Best Overall Candidate

Alan Dempsey Diageo Global Supply, Dublin, Ireland Irish

DIPLOMA IN BREWING:

John S Ford Award Best Overall Candidate

Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company, MN, USA International

Crisp Malting Award - Diploma in Brewing Module 1

Jason Lappe Carlton & United Breweries, Queensland, Australia Asia Pacific
Agnieszka Morgan Heineken UK, Hereford, England Midland

Brewery Engineers Association Award - Diploma in Brewing Module 3

Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company, MN, USA International

DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING :

Worshipful Company of Distillers Scholarship Award - Best Overall Candidate

Georgina Bell Scotch Malt Whisky Society, Edinburgh, Scotland Scottish

Simpsons Malt Award - Diploma in Distilling Module 1

Tambudzai Makunde African Distillers, Harare, Zimbabwe Africa

Worshipful Company of Distillers Award - Diploma in Distilling Module 2

Richard Cowley Diageo Global Supply, Edinburgh, Scotland Scottish

Briggs of Burton Award - Diploma in Distilling Module 3

Rachel Mark Diageo Global Supply, Menstrie, Scotland Scottish

DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING:

Quinn Award Diploma in Packaging Module 1

Patrick Ongom Nile Breweries, Jinja, Uganda Africa

Micro Matic Award - Diploma in Packaging Module 2

Kristin Wellman Craft Brewers Alliance, Woodinville, USA International

Brewery Engineers Award - Diploma in Packaging Module 3 - not awarded in 2013

GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN BREWING:

Worshipful Company of Brewers Award - Livery

Bethan Parry Fuller Smith & Turner, London, England Southern

Worshipful Company of Brewers Award

Gabe Mixon Blue Ridge College NC, USA (Non-Member)

GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN PACKAGING:

Worshipful Company of Brewers Award

Sandeep Kumar Skol Breweries, Sonepat, India (Non-Member)
Vikrant Sharma Skol Breweries, Sonepat, India (Non-Member)

GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN DISTILLING:

Scotch Whisky Association Award

Patrick Howley Celtic Brew, Co. Westmeath, Ireland (Non-Member)

FUNDAMENTALS OF DISTILLING:

Worshipful Company of Distillers Fundamentals Award

Naomi Laurie ON, Canada International

Examiners Report 2013 7

REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Looking back
First up my apologies for the delayed publication of this report, we plan to
do much better with this years report.
This has been primarily a year of consolidation for IBD examinations. That
said there have been a number of new and exciting initiatives notably
examining the Diploma in Brewing Modules 1 and 2 in French and the
development of the General Certificate in Malting. Pleasingly candidate
numbers continue to climb with year on year increases of 35% and 55%
for, respectively, the Diploma in Packaging and Diploma in Distilling.
Whilst total candidates for these examinations are below 100, the Diploma
in Brewing has increased by 31% to an astonishing 883.
The global reach of IBD examinations is once again reflected in the various
awards to the best candidates passing examinations across the portfolio
from Fundamentals of Distilling through to the James Hough award for the
best overall candidate in the Master Brewer. In all 18 awards were given
to candidates in the USA (4), Scotland (3), England (2), India (2), Ireland (2),
Uganda, Zimbabwe and Canada. The Board of Examiners (BOE) sends its
hearty congratulations to all award winners and indeed all candidates who
were successful in the 2013 diet of examinations.
Examiner feedback
The real value of the Examiners Report is the general and specific feedback
from the examination teams. This is a must read for all candidates
providing question-by-question detail from the Examiners setting the
questions. Having reviewed these individual reports, its hard not to be
struck by how the same general themes come up year after year. In
attempt to refresh the communication of these important message(s), the
below table (once again) flags this years universal key things for
candidates to do.
Examiners feedback MBrew DipBrew DipDistil DipPack
Read the question
Answer the question
you are asked
Avoid being vague or
wooly
Read around dont
limit yourself to
revision notes
Record questions
answered in order
on the front of the
booklet
Manage your time v
marks on offer
Diagrams practice,
suitably sized and
annotated
Do not try and
question spot the
syllabus is being
examined
As a former Examiner, all of the above strike a familiar chord. Whilst all
are important, my pet enthusiasm is lack of reading around and over (if
not total) dependency on revision notes for preparation. Indeed the
worrying trend of learning this information word for word and
regurgitating it back as an examination answer is very strongly
discouraged. These notes are simply supportive and require to be
embellished with contemporary review articles in the Brewer and Distiller
International (BDI) and elsewhere. An excellent and increasingly expansive
resource of learning material can be found at the IBD Learning Zone via
http://www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk.
8 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
It is in the interests for all stakeholders to improve the performance of
candidates. Accordingly the preparing for success one pager in the BDI
last May - available via the IBD website - will be refreshed again for this
years candidates. Further a Candidates Welcome Pack has been
prepared which provides an overview of all things examinations. This is a
living document and includes guidance on preparation/study, training,
mentoring and the importance of the Examiners Report. This is available
via the IBD website and the link will be part of the communications with
candidates.
Hello and goodbye
One of my key roles is to develop the BOE in terms of mix, experience and
diversity. Further as candidate numbers grow, the model of one Examiner
and one Moderator has been challenged with notably the Diploma in
Brewing a move to two (and potentially three) Examiners. This, together
with the need for robust succession planning has increased the churn
within the BOE.
Accordingly some long serving and highly committed members of the BOE
have called it a day. Both Brian Eaton (DipBrew 3) and Paul Buttrick
(MBrew 5) have both been Examiners for over a decade and have
contributed selflessly and thoughtfully to candidates in particular and the
IBD in general. Thank you Brian and Paul.
The other side of the coin is to welcome a number of new folk to the BOE.
Joining us this last year Im delighted to welcome Trace Adie (DipPack),
Shiona Kamermans (MBrew) and Jens Voigt (MBrew). This coming year we
welcome Gary Freeman, Phil Worsley, Breda Tanner (all Dip Brew) and Bob
Pursley, Derek Orford and Paul Jefferies (all MBrew).
The role of examiner without portfolio enables potential examiners to be
gently introduced into the hurly-burly of the BOE without the immediate
responsibility of setting and marking scripts. Inevitably the BOE is always
looking for potential recruits. Please make contact if youre interested in
knowing more, particularly if you have expertise and experience of the
world of distilling.
Looking forward
Of course the big news for the IBD this year is the relocation from Clarges
Street to a marvellously fit for purpose building in Curlew Street in
Southwark just south of the river Thames in London. For the BOE, the big
news is strategic and structural review of the jewel in the crown, the
Diploma in Brewing. This will not a be a root and branch review but will
focus on making the examination better by applying successful approaches
from other examinations in the portfolio. Although focused on brewing, it
is inevitable that other Diploma examinations will be impacted by this
activity. Without prejudging the outcome, a possible consideration is to
better suite together brewing, packaging and distilling and to remove any
overlap of subjects. Further the possible introduction of short questions -
to better cover the syllabus will encourage a syllabus wide approach to
preparation and revision and discourage the old favourite of question
spotting.
Thanks
The process that delivers IBD examinations is increasingly complex and
demanding. Huge thanks are due to the Clarges Street (for the last time!)
team who manage the interaction with candidates and pull together the
logistics, locations, scripts and generally make things happen in a timely
and efficient way. Thanks are also due to the good people at examination
centres who coordinate, arrange and invigilate. My thanks to all my
colleagues past and present - in the Board of Examiners for their
steadfast commitment, good humour and professionalism. Finally a very
personal thank you to Steve Curtis and Simon Jackson at the IBD for their
fellowship, hard work and shared vision.
I would welcome any feedback good or bad, big or small on IBD
examinations. In particular this is especially welcome from candidates or
folk who would like to know more without commitment of becoming
an Examiner.
David Quain
 The Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Examinations 2013
Question Papers and Examiners Reports

MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2013

Examination team Robert Illingworth, Ian Smith, Jeremy Stead, Michael Partridge, Steve Curtis, Robin Cooper, Ian
Bearpark, Richard Westwood and Jens Voigt

Module 1 Materials and Wort Production

Thirty four candidates sat the papers, nineteen candidates passed
equivalent to a pass rate of 56%. This pass rate is slightly better than last
years results (51%) but is below the five year rolling average pass rate of
59%.
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
The marks for paper 1 ranged from 26% to 78%.
Cultivation of barleys for malting
This remains a weak area for most candidates. Null-Lox barley, which
featured in one of the questions, was the subject of a lengthy article in the
IBDs Brewer & Distiller International magazine.
Malting Process
Local sections of the IBD often organize visits to maltings; anyone
preparing for this exam must make full use of the learning opportunities
provided by these events. Too few candidates knew how to describe, even
briefly, the operation of the germination stage of a tower maltings.
Further the rise in popularity of micro-breweries and their products
requires brewers once again to know about specialty malts and how they
are produced.
Quality control and specifications
In general these questions were answered adequately.
Hops and hop products
Several candidates were unsure of the characteristics that are selected for
in a new bittering hop variety and many were unsure of the manufacturing
process for isomerized hop pellets.
Supply and treatment of water supply
Despite being the majority constituent of beer and despite the Examiners
comments on this topic last year, too few candidates knew the geological
formations likely to contain aquifers. Additionally a surprising number of
answers failed to identify the ionic composition of brewing water for Pilsen
light lager. The effects of calcium ions present in wort during mashing and
boiling were generally well described.
Materials and composition of wort
The calculation of malt costs and hop grist was similar to last year; again
several answers ignored the moisture content of the malt.
Brewhouse design and layout
A surprising number of answers did not identify the Symphony boiling
system despite the fact the photograph and the accompanying
manufacturers advertising copy appear regularly in the Brewer & Distiller
International.
Control of hygiene
Too many candidates failed to explain why caustic soda (sodium
hydroxide) is such a potent brewhouse detergent despite its almost
universal use.
Quality and Troubleshooting
The interpretation of the information revealed by an EBC control chart for
wort colour was not particularly well thought through.
Computer Security
Many candidates were unable to identify the various elements of a
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
Brewhouse Management
A very small number of candidates made the correct calculation of the
number of brews that could be scheduled in a week. The key to this
computation was 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.
Utilities and Services Usage
The question about the cost of boiling a given volume of wort was not
answered particularly well. The key to this calculation was that in a wort
kettle that is 100% efficient, 1kg of steam is required to evaporate 1kg of
water from the wort.
Waste Minimization
There are several well-known techniques for minimizing waste. These
include prevention, re-use, recycling, energy recovery and disposal, in that
order of preference. Candidates should be fully conversant with these
waste management techniques as they should be in use every working
day.
Financial Reporting
With very few exceptions businesses have to be run within agreed financial
constraints. Reporting systems are devised to present appropriate
financial data to managers. It is important to know which reports are
which so that meaningful action can be taken to control costs. Few
candidates were aware of the purpose of management accounting reports.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
The marks for Paper 2 ranged from 26% to 66%.
In previous years Examiners have exhorted candidates to read the
questions carefully and allocate sufficient time to answer each question.
Last year all candidates answered the required four questions, though this
year recidivism crept in with one candidate only having time to answer
three questions.
Question 1- Water and barley
Describe the role of water in all the processes involved from newly sown
barley seeds to malt in a storage silo at the brewery.
This question was attempted by 27 candidates (79%) and of those 10
(37%) passed.
A wide ranging question from drilling barley seed at the start of the
agricultural season to malt stored in the brewery. Many candidates
missed an opportunity of demonstrating their knowledge of barley
agronomy, the effect of climate on the geography of suitable growing
areas and the effect of weather on the growing season. Coupling these
factors with recent extreme weather events round the globe and the

Examiners Report 2013 9

possibility of climate change due to human influence would have added
shine to a good answer.
In discussing the role water plays during steeping, germination and kilning
many answers were on surer ground and these topics were discussed in a
competent manner
Question 2 Hop market and hop cultivation
Summarize changes to the hop market over recent years and explain the
factors driving those changes.
Describe a typical annual cultivation schedule for hop plants from early
spring to harvesting and outline harvesting and initial storage
procedures.
This question was answered by 14 candidates (41%) with six achieving a
pass mark (43%).
There were no really competent answers to this question and the overall
pass rate was mediocre. Some candidates had made an effort to research
the hop market in preparation for the exam and answers to this part of the
question were an improvement on previous years. A surprising number of
candidates failed to mention reduced hop products for protection against
light-struck character in bottled beer, as well as improved foam
performance, and hop oils received scant mention for introducing a dry
hop character. A small number of answers covered the cultivation of hop
plants in excellent detail.
Question 3 Wort boiling systems
There have been several innovations in the technology of wort boiling
systems over recent years. Describe the operation of three commercial
systems, which are currently available, indicating how each one achieves
the physical and chemical changes which wort should undergo during the
boiling process. Explain the market forces that are driving these
developments.
This question was answered by 27 candidates (79%) with only nine
achieving a pass mark (33%).
A popular question but badly answered by many who attempted it. Wort
boiling is one of the most fundamental processes in the brewery. It is also
very energy intensive and these two factors have encouraged
manufacturers of brewery plant to devise novel ways of achieving the
requirements of boiling, that is to say, stripping of volatiles, and the other
physical and chemical changes that are characteristic of this stage. Few, if
any, candidates can have direct experience of all the systems currently
available but knowledge can be gained by attending IBD section meetings
together with the expansive brewing literature, manufacturers literature
and of course, the internet.
Question 4 Brewing materials requirements
Calculate the annual brewing materials requirements to produce
1.5million hl of 5.2% abv lager beer where 80% of the extract is from
malted barley and the remainder from an unmalted cereal. 75% of the
volume is packaged into 500 ml cans and the rest into 30 litre kegs. This
beer has a bitterness of 30 BU, some of which is derived from a late
aroma hop addition which endows the beer with a typical floral aroma.
State all your assumptions and show all calculations.
This question was answered by 20 candidates (59%) and of those 11 (55%)
passed.
This question required a rigorously logical approach. Firstly candidates
should look at their assumptions which should include malt moisture,
losses through the process (as well as brewhouse yield), the PG or final
gravity, any constant used to derive the OG or original extract, hop -acid
content, hop utilisation (both kettle and late) and so one and so forth.
Marks are also gained by correctly designing the calculations as well as
achieving the correct answer from those calculations. Secondly candidates
must take great care when calculating quantities which involve using
factors based on percentages (e.g. brewhouse yield, beer losses or hop
utilisation).
10 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
For example, percentage losses in different areas, say fermentation,
maturation, filtration etc., cannot be added up to get to the overall loss
across those departments. The volume losses at each stage must be
calculated individually. In this particular question since we are not
concerned with the stages between brewhouse and packaging, the overall
loss there may be quoted in the assumptions.
Furthermore in order to derive the volume before a loss was made it is
necessary to use this calculation.
Using this question as an example, the brewerys output in 500 ml cans is
75% of 1.5 million hl, in other words
1,500,000 75/100 = 1,125,000
However during the canning process there is an oft quoted loss of 5%, so
the volume of beer that must be available to the canning line is given by
1,125,000 100/95 = 1,184,105
Any other way of calculating an original volume from a loss percentage is
likely to lead to the wrong answer. The same strictures apply to
brewhouse yield (that is the percentage of extract recovered from the malt
compared with the lab extract) and malt moisture.
Question 5 Food safety and product quality audit
Describe a food safety and product quality audit of a brewhouse from
malt intake to wort cooling. Which aspects of procedures and operations
must be scrutinized? Identify seven critical audit points in the process
and explain their significance.
This question was answered by 29 candidates (85%) with 15 achieving a
pass mark (52%).
This was the most popular question of the examination. Conducting an
audit and preparing for an audit are becoming activities which are more
and more frequently carried out by brewery mangers. In general those
that achieved the pass mark did so comfortably, whilst those who failed,
did so decisively.
Safety audits are straightforward tools which support food safety
management policies and controls but also provide information to
underpin performance improvements. The planning of an audit must be
systematic and meticulous so that the audit criteria, e.g. policies,
procedures and requirements are well understood. A good answer would
describe the various ways audit evidence is acquired (interviews,
observations, records etc.). The ability to identify critical audit points,
which were credible, ensured the better candidates scored extra marks.
Question 6 Sustainability and the brewhouse
At the 2005 World Summit on Social Development it was noted that
sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental, social equity
and economic demands. Draw up a strategy for improving the
sustainability of a brewhouse and its operations.
This question was answered by 18 candidates (53%) with 12 achieving a
pass mark (67%).
Although this question only attracted just over half the candidates to
attempt it, those that did so scored well and achieved the highest pass rate
of any question. Although the word sustainability is often defined on a
grand scale to include environmental, social and economic dimensions, for
a brewhouse a good place to start would be energy conservation. Of
course energy conservation is a good umbrella term for many different
initiatives, which could include: energy audits, measuring and monitoring
energy usage; energy usage targeting; targeted investigations and action
plans, adjusting the copper boil by adjusting the procedure or capital
investment, better utilization of co-products and minimization of waste.
Describing these sorts of measures and many others enabled the better
candidates to score well on this particular question.
Bob Illingworth
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2013

Module 2 Fermentation and Beer Processing

This was the fourth year for the new style syllabus and examination. There Weaker answers tended to focus only on quality items and one or two
were 2 papers, the first consisting of multiple choice and short answer other factors.
questions and the second being a traditional essay style paper. Forty
Question 2
candidates submitted scripts for the two papers. Twenty two gained pass
grades with a pass rate of 55%. There was one candidate at grade B, 10 at With the aid of suitably labelled diagrams, describe in detail the design
grade C and 11 at grade D. and operation of a yeast cropping system and storage tanks required to
maintain yeast slurry cropped from cylindroconical fermenters in the
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice best possible condition for subsequent repitching. Indicate all process
parameters that require to be considered and show how they are
There were 3 very good papers, 7 good papers, 8 comfortable passes, 4 incorporated in the design and operation.
disappointing papers and the rest were clustered around the minimum
Thirty seven candidates attempted this question with 31 achieving the
standard.
pass standard (84%). There were six very good answers.
This paper covers the whole syllabus. The better candidates were able to
Two good diagrams with good annotation helped some of the better
answer questions across the whole paper with a wider spread of
candidates to achieve good marks for the design, worth 60% of the marks,
knowledge. Questions on filtration were generally less well answered than
with minimal writing. Some supplemented rather weak diagrams with
others, as was the one related to the product safety risks on a plate heat
good text to achieve similar results. More marks were gained for showing
exchanger.
how the design features met the requirements for good yeast handling.
Candidates should note that where a question asks for a specific number
The operation of the plant should have covered yeast movement, storage
of responses, and more are offered, they will be marked in the order
practices and conditions (agitation, temperature, sampling and testing)
supplied up to the required number and extra answers will be ignored.
and CIP. In other words the whole cycle of use. Weaker answers missed
out one or more of these elements.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
Question 3
There were two very good papers, 3 good papers, 10 comfortable passes,
13 disappointing papers and the rest were clustered around the minimum Describe all procedures and controls in fermentation and beer processing
standard. Some candidates were clearly not prepared for an examination areas that are important in ensuring beer flavour consistency. Explain
at this level, with a lack of practical knowledge and limited breadth of how each item discussed fulfils its purpose.
experience showing in the answers.
Thirty two candidates attempted this question with 18 achieving the pass
There were some areas of examination technique that let candidates standard (56%), though there were no very good answers.
down. Candidates need only write the question number at the start of
There are many factors that positively affect flavour including wort
their answers. There is no benefit or score attracted by copying out the
composition (oxygen and zinc being in scope for this paper), yeast
question from the examination paper. Time management was a problem
management, temperatures, pressure, process additions, etc. The impact
for a few candidates with three fairly complete answers presented, and
on flavour of these factors should have been stated, and what happens to
then the fourth was barely started. There were some questions that
flavour if control is poor. Then the means of implementing control should
candidates had either not read properly or had misunderstood the
have been noted. Weaker answers failed to cover the range of factors, or
direction required, resulting in irrelevant information being presented and
failed to show how they were controlled to maintain consistency. This
in some cases whole sections missed.
section was worth 75% of the marks.
Several questions were ideally answered by including a well presented,
The remaining 25% could have been gained from mention of how off-
labelled diagram, flow chart or graph, or a table of information and
flavours can arise in the process (e.g. metallic, oxidised, diacetyl) and how
comments. This is a simple way of presenting large amounts of information
they are avoided so that flavour remains consistent. Several candidates
without taking too much time. Diagrams ranged from very good to very
failed to cover these adequately.
poor. The best used at least half a side of paper, were drawn with a ruler
and were neatly annotated with appropriate labels. The worst were very Question 4
small, untidy and without adequate labelling. It is worth noting for future
With the aid of suitable diagrams, describe the design and layout of a
candidates that they are recommended to practice drawing diagrams of all
filtration plant suitable to produce 2 million hl per year of bright beer
of the main plant items (vessels, filters etc.) as part of their preparation.
from high gravity rough beer with an average dilution factor of 25%. 70%
Candidates should also note that information supplied in one answer can
of the output is for small pack beer with a required shelf life of 9 months,
be referred to in another answer without repeating the information in full.
the remainder is keg beer. Specify and justify the type and size/rating of
The performance in questions 4 and 6 relating to filtration showed the plant selected and state any assumptions made.
relative weakness of many candidates in this area. Pass rates were low, but
What risks are present in such a plant to the safety of personnel working
there were some high marks from those who clearly knew the topic and
there, and how are they minimized?
demonstrated practical knowledge and experience.
Eighteen candidates attempted this question with 7 achieving the pass
Question 1
standard (39%); amongst them were three very good answers.
Describe Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can be used to monitor
The starting point for this answer is to calculate the hourly output required
performance in the fermentation and maturation/conditioning areas of a
from the plant to enable it to be sized. More marks were gained by making
brewery. For each KPI indicate how it impacts on the business and the
realistic assumptions about manned hours, maintenance and cleaning
factors that influence the performance.
time, change-over and CIP time, product mix, losses, and peak week
Thirty three candidates attempted this question with 13 achieving the pass loading. The range of sizes proposed varied by 50% either side of the
standard (39%). There were three very good answers. mean.
Many candidates focused on low level detail, such as individual quality The design and layout should have encompassed the plant and equipment
parameters, rather than the higher level or key measures that were from intake to the filter room to outlet buffer tank. A few candidates
required. Aspects of process time, quality, costs (losses, material variances, wasted time drawing and sizing either CTs, BBTs or both. All the major
and utility usage), safety, productivity and employee engagement should plant items should have been included, as well as indication of type and
all have featured in a balanced response. The better answers covered how location of control instrumentation. Weaker answers failed to state why
the measures were formulated and what could improve the result. specific equipment was selected or what size or rating it had.

Examiners Report 2013 11

Most candidates identified at least 3 safety risks, gaining about half of the
25% of marks available for this section if they had also identified risk
reduction practices. Factors such as kieselguhr dust, CO2/N2,
slips/trips/falls, noise, chemicals, hot water/steam should all have been
considered.
Question 5
An infection of Lactobacillus sp has been detected in beer in bright beer
tanks but results from maturation/conditioning tanks are clear. Describe
the process for investigating the sources and causes of such an infection
including details of microbiological tests undertaken. What remedial
procedures should be implemented to remove the infection, and what
should be done to prevent a recurrence?
Twenty three candidates attempted this question with 14 achieving the
pass standard (61%). There was only one very good answer.
Stronger candidates started this answer with a brief description of a
problem solving method such as DMAIC or PDCA. The main part could then
proceed ideally with a flow chart and a plan for sampling and testing to
narrow down the problem. This should include product, additions and
plant. There were very few people with detailed knowledge of the
microbiological methods that can be used.
Relatively few answers distinguished clearly between immediate remedial
measures to eliminate the infection, and longer term measures to prevent
a recurrence. Good answers showed the urgency to blitz clean plant
using heat and different, stronger CIP, strip down, inspect and change
plant, seals, gas filters, etc. Recurrence can be prevented by using the
lessons learned to update SOPs, install robust sampling and testing
schedules, renew operator training, and improve CIP processes, plant
inspection and consumables replacement.
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2013
Module 3 Packaging of Beer
In 2013, 27 papers were received of which 13 (48%) achieved the pass
standard. This represents deterioration on last years performance (56%).
The average pass mark was low at 50.9% with passes at grades C, and D
and few strong answers. Again this was a reduction on last year figure with
fewer papers scoring consistently well across all questions attempted.
Paper 1 was aimed at demonstrating experience and 52% of candidates
achieved the pass mark compared with 48% passing the second paper.
Overall, candidates appear to be familiar with the basic principles of a least
one method of packaging. However when pressed on packaging
requirements beyond their experience, only a basic knowledge was
demonstrable. If presenting for this level of qualification, a good overall
knowledge of the syllabus needs to be backed up by practical experience.
It is worrying that some candidates are seemingly without any apparent
experience of either managing or operating a packaging line, with their
preparation solely sourced from the written word.
Further, 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.
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
In general, questions requiring lists or specific examples were answered
best. If details were requested the answers on values were wide ranging.
As in last years paper bottling then kegging questions were answered
best. Several calculations were included which should pose no problem at
all to any candidate with operational experience. That said, answers should
12 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Question 6
Describe the instrumentation which can be installed and the process and
procedures which should be implemented from conditioning tank to
bright beer tank to maximize the Right First Time (RFT) performance for
CO2, DO2 and ABV.
Which other parameters should be routinely monitored and used for
close control and positive release of beer in BBT and why?
Seventeen candidates attempted this question with only three achieving
the pass standard (18%). There was one very good answer.
This question could be best started with an outline process flow chart of a
filter room showing the positions of relevant instrumentation (or referring
to a diagram in the answer to Q4). Then there should have been a
description of how the instruments worked and what is needed to verify
their output (calibration, cross-checks, etc.). Very few people covered this
section well.
The next element should have described what other procedures should be
adopted to get the three parameters right. These should have included
first and last runnings and beer/water interface controls for ABV, buffer
tank and BBT top pressure and beer flow controls for CO2, and DO
avoidance practices such as line and tank purging, additive slurry purging,
filter deaeration, DAL control etc. SPC techniques on BBT results can be
used to spot an adverse trend in instrument performance.
The final part, worth 20% of the marks, revealed varied answers. The
essence of close control and positive release tests is to assess consumer-
impacting parameters that can be checked promptly. Alarmingly quite a
few candidates forgot taste, while some mentioned microbiological
testing, which of course is real time. Most answers mentioned haze and
colour, some included pH (coarse check for detergent ingress) and a rapid
foam test.
Jeremy Stead
always be realistic and candidates should question when an unrealistic
value is calculated. The same comment is true of some very basic
questions in the paper, usually multiple choice options to which the less
successful candidates gave incorrect answers. This echoes the Examiners
comments from last year regarding the lack of exposure of candidates to
all areas of the syllabus.
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
In paper 2 there were two very popular questions which greater than 90%
of candidates attempted and at the other end of the spectrum - one
unpopular question which only 30% of candidates attempted.
The best candidates were able to clearly demonstrate their knowledge and
direct experience of a topic area by including accurate references, sensible
values and justifications to a range of processes and operational
parameters.
Examination technique let down a number of candidates with questions
missed completely or obviously answered under a severe time constraint.
Regrettably some candidates continue not to read the questions and miss
out key elements that have been requested. Good diagrams were rare.
This is disappointing as well laid out diagrams can provide an excellent
source of information. Some poor diagrams were accompanied by data
hidden within the script later in the answer. Those good answers had clear
tables relating information and data to sections of the question.
Some questions were answered well with high scores however all
candidates had a least one question that they failed to maintain their
standard on. The absence of A or B grades provides evidences for this lack
of in depth knowledge of packaging types outwith the candidates normal
experience.
Question 1 Plant Design
A new site is to be established for can filling with an annual capacity of
500,000HL split between 330; 440 and 500ml containers. All 330ml
product is a de-alcoholised product accounting for 10% of overall
volume. The 440 and 500ml products are a mixture of normal ales and
lagers in the ratio of 1:2 of their pack size. The plant will package on two
8hr shifts, 5 days a week. For this design detail and illustrate the
requirements for utilities, manning and data capture and explain how
the planned design and operating schedule guarantees that quality and
lowest cost production is achieved within the parameters stated.
Explain any assumptions made.
Surprisingly, bearing in mind the relative predictability of this type of
question it was attempted by only 55% of candidates with a pass rate of
60%.
The key to answering this question well was to address all details of the
calculation and justify the final assessment of working hours and necessary
throughputs. The inclusion of de-alcoholised product and its impact on
cleaning regimes and schedules was not considered by many. Good
answers were able to deal with practical solutions explaining their choice
of shift patterns and throughputs with sensible estimates of efficiency.
A good diagram was key to answering this question quickly. The second
section of the question was ignored by many, thus limiting the marks
available to them.
Question 2 Packaging materials
Describe the data and processes required to ensure that all materials for
a multiple SKU non-returnable bottling line are available in a timely
manner, at the correct specification to meet production demand.
Detail what level of communication is required between technical
production staff and material / equipment suppliers in order to meet and
assure product requirements.
This was a fairly popular question with 63% of candidates answering. Of
those answering 47% achieved the pass standard.
Good candidates considered the question in stages, detailing inputs and
outputs as required to efficiently operate a non-returnable bottling line. A
basic understanding of the materials and process involved was insufficient.
Other considerations included forecasting, purchasing, lead times, stock
control, specification management, information flow, process controls,
quality, new product development and logistics handling.
Better answers included good diagrams and knowledge of common
material variations that can impact on quality and performance. The
section on supplier material criteria that can impact on bottling was poorly
answered demonstrating little experience of practical operations
management.
Better answers understood the complexity of achieving this in a multiple
SKU environment and fully described a process to rate supplier
performance which would cover delivery performance, material or plant
non-conformances, and operational support.
Question 3 Keg line audit
Describe in detail the process of auditing a multiple lane keg plant to
assess process and hygiene risks, which could lead to the manufacture of
product, which is out of internal specification.
This was the joint most popular question with 92% of candidates
answering it. There was a wide range in the standard of the answers and
68% achieved the pass standard making this one of the better answered
questions.
The better answers demonstrated a clear understanding of multi-lane keg
line design and process. They then linked this to key process risks and
justified an audit plan based on sound knowledge and risk assessment.
Poorer answers focused on the structure of an audit process rather than
the key areas of the process being audited. These answers were general in
their approach to auditing and had a few references to the key control
points and food safety aspects of managing a kegging operation.
The better answers demonstrated experience of exposure to third party
rather than internal audit and focused on the reasons why hygiene policies
and procedures would be of importance to an auditor.
Question 4 Large pack consumer complaints investigation
When considering the packaging of beers in glass detail the requirements
of a functional HACCP system. Describe how product risks to the
consumer, customers and plant personnel are assessed and controlled.
This was the other joint most popular question with 92% of candidates
answering. Ironically though it was the least well-answered question with
only 44% achieving the pass standard.
Good answers demonstrated experience of implementing or operating as a
team member in a HACCP program related to bottling. Specific risk areas
were detailed and considered via HACCP principles as applicable to a
bottling operation. Pre-requisite programs were included and sensible
values for critical control points were justified.
Poorer answers focused on HACCP general principles and did not consider
product risk from a customer, consumer or plant personnel objective.
Question 5 Traceability
Describe the packaging material manufacturing process for the
production of keg containers. Identify what additional container
component details need to be specified.
Detail how new batches of all incoming materials would be tested prior
to and after use in order to guarantee final product specifications.
This was the least popular question with only 37% of candidates
answering. Overall answers were good with 70% achieving the pass rate.
This question required a good understanding of what is a relatively simple
process. Experience was demonstrated through good knowledge of
materials, the manufacturing process steps and specifications such as
material grades, operational pressures, food contact requirements,
knowledge of secondary dispense components, traceability and tamper
evidence. The better answers also included sensible procedures for judging
performance at delivery and product performance in use, many poorer
answers omitted the stages of a systematic process for the assessment of
new packaging materials.
Question 6 Dispense
Describe a complete dispense system suitable for the serving of draught
lager beer to several bars at differing levels within a building. Define the
cellar space and bar positions, refer to hygiene requirements and justify
your choice of materials and overall design.
This question was in the middle ground of popularity with 55% of
candidates answering it. Of those, 60% achieved the pass standard.
It is fair to say that all but a couple of the candidates could only display a
rudimentary knowledge of dispense systems. The better answers
understood the challenges and justified the technical options taken which
would service the complexity of multiple bars at differing elevations.
Sound references to gas pressures and temperatures required to present
product at the correct specification were good evidence of experience. The
latter half of the question is again relatively predictable and should present
no problem to any brewing packaging personnel who have taken part in
trade visits or the design of beer cellar whether on site at the brewery or in
the retail trade.
Michael Partridge
Examiners Report 2013 13
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2013
Module 4 Resource Management and Regulatory
Compliance
A total of eighteen candidates attempted the two examinations.
Paper 1: Short Questions and Multiple Choice
The best candidate achieved a mark of 79% whilst the weakest achieved
43%.
This year questions on the environment, health and safety, quality
assurance and resource planning were again answered more strongly than
finance and supply chain.
For Q5 (categories of use for electricity in a brewery) the Examiner was
seeking ranked categories rather than single specific applications. So a
good answer might have listed refrigeration, pumping duties, compressed
air, malt conveying and lighting.
One of the safety questions (Q8 explanations of the terms intrinsically
safe and fail safe) yielded few correct answers for the first part of the
question. There seemed to be a lot of confusion between intrinsically safe
and inherently safe. In the field of safety, intrinsically safe has a very
specific meaning and describes a protection technique for the safe
operation of electrical equipment in hazardous areas by limiting the
energy available for ignition. In contrast fail safe was generally explained
satisfactorily.
Q12 (the main objectives of holding an inquiry following a serious
accident) produced a range of answers with many which were far too
simplistic. A list might have included: establishing where
systems/procedures failed, the effectiveness of the immediate response to
the incident, lessons learned, whether disciplinary action is required,
whether individuals should be held culpable, action against the company
etc. The structure of the actual inquiry was not asked for.
Q14 (key attributes of bottled beer). There was a wide choice for bottle
label attributes but most candidates offered ABV, contents, allergens and
health warnings. Best before date and the contact address of the brand
owner were also correctly proposed by some candidates.
Q15 (the key stages of handling customer complaints) was adequately
answered but few mentioned the full cycle from recording, communicating
with customer, quantifying the level, forming the team, investigating and
tracing, possible quarantine, reference samples, trigger point for re-call,
re-supply and PR implications. The best answers mentioned the
implications of wider crisis management.
Q17 (how the impact of a capital project appears in a profit and loss
statement) was not well answered. Several candidates cited depreciation
but few listed plant/spares write-offs, training, reduced/increased
operating costs etc.
Q20 (standard installation contracts) was quite well answered with most
candidates understanding the tried and tested Institute backed approach
and the time saved compared with producing a bespoke contract.
Q21 (key costs in an operational budget) once again demonstrated
candidates ongoing confusion between fixed and variable costs. Future
candidates would do well to ensure a sound understanding of fixed,
variable and (at this level) semi-variable costs as well as direct and indirect
costs and the principles of standard costing.
Q22 (options for dealing with sudden demand). Most candidates identified
stockholding, capacity, possible outsourcing and flexible working
agreements (seasonal peak, hot weather etc.).
Q24 (seven stages of the procurement cycle). Few candidates specified all
seven: identify requirements, obtain quotes, assess offers,
negotiate/formalise, place order, receive goods or service and pay
supplier.
For Q27 (problem solving) most candidates were able to produce an
example of where to use a rational approach to solving a problem (e.g.
control problem with packaging machine, pump failure) but many
struggled with a creative approach. Examples might have included how to
ensure a new team member joins in or changes to the working
environment.
14 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Paper 2: Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Explain the objectives of trade effluent control.
Describe the conditions which may be imposed by a Regulatory Authority
on liquid effluent discharged from a brewery.
Explain how maintaining these conditions may affect everyday
production operations.
This was a very popular question with sixteen of the eighteen candidates
choosing to answer it. Marks ranged from 8 to 17.
The majority of candidates chose to interpret effluent as wastewater
whilst several candidates interpreted effluent more widely to include
solid waste. For the latter, the objectives for control can be said to:
Minimize landfill
Maximize re-use/recycling
The objectives of liquid trade effluent control are to ensure that discharges
either alone or in combination with other effluents or contents of the
sewer cannot harm:
the effluent network
the effluent treatment works
employees and the general public
the environment
At a practical level it should also be stressed that controlling cost is
another objective!
Short explanations rather than a simple list - for each of these points
were sought by the Examiner. A similar approach was taken In seeking
descriptions of the conditions which may be imposed by a Regulatory
Authority on liquid effluent discharged from a brewery. Marks were gained
for the fundamental conditions (often used for charging): volume, COD
and suspended solids. Additional marks were earned for pH, temperature,
toxic metals and other prescribed substances. The best answers included
typical values for each main parameter.
For the final part of the question the examiner was seeking explanations of
how the conditions may affect everyday production operations rather than
longer term strategic changes. Examples might have included:
balancing to avoid peaks of pH, temperature, COD, SS
ongoing pH adjustment
suspension of operations (in extremis) to avoid exceeding
consent limit
planned CIP programming
planned discharge of high COD or SS loads
planned discharge of high/low pH liquids
Question 2
A brewhouse has twin brewing streams with crossovers between the
streams at strategic points to maximize flexibility in their use. One of the
two wort transfer pumps has failed and must be replaced as a matter of
urgency to maintain the brewing programme.
What system design features would be expected to allow such a
replacement to be carried out?
Explain the safety hazards that must be taken into account in carrying
out this task.
Describe the procedures and measures that can minimize the risks to
safety when the task is carried out.
This question was attempted by fourteen candidates with marks ranging
from a very poor 7 to a creditable 18.
For the first part of the question the examiner was seeking physical plant
features specifically designed to aid such an operation. Possibilities might
include:
Double block and bleed valves
Space for technicians to work, to move old pump out and new in
 Overhead lifting beam perhaps (permanent or under-slung from
scaffolding)
Secure electrical isolation
Good access to electrical connection(s)
Good access to foot securing bolts etc.
Self-supporting pipework
Explanations of the safety hazards were generally well covered. The better
candidates developed most if not all of the following:
Electricity
Hot surfaces
Hot fluids
Chemicals
Manual handling
Lifting of heavy item(s)
Noise
Slippery surfaces
Confined space (perhaps)
Descriptions of the procedures and measures that can minimize the risks
to safety of the task being carried out were also fairly well handled. The
very best answers included a rotation check on the pump once electrical
connection is restored and cleaning of the pump/pipework prior to use.
Many candidates were able to develop some or most of these suggestions:
Permit(s) to work
Safe Working Practices
PPE
Lifting equipment
Temporary scaffolding for lifting beam (perhaps)
Electrical and mechanical isolations and testing
Rotation check on re-commissioning
Cleaning of pump and pipework
Preventing product contamination
Question 3
For the installation of a new packaging line, identify the key components
of the plant and beer supply and prepare a HACCP analysis for its safe
operation. Describe the principles and skills required.
Once established, how would food safety be maintained?
What records would be required to verify food safety to an external
auditor?
Sixteen candidates chose to answer this question with marks ranging from
11 to a very good 20.
The question was generally well understood and answered with most
candidates identifying the main components of the line and applying the
seven HACCP principles to each part. The better candidates went on to
describe the management of Critical Control Points, training, daily checks,
audits and re-assessment following changes.
Records should have included original analysis, policy statement, training,
maintenance, review data etc.
Overall there was a tendency to spend too much time on HACCP theory
without applying it to the plant so marks were lost.
Question 4
Describe how time and cost can be controlled effectively for a project to
install a new automated cold conditioning block which has to be
integrated between the existing fermenting tanks and filtration system.
Identify the major work streams and what would need to be considered
at the interfaces with existing plant.
Describe an effective methodology for managing changes to the scope or
design and the impact on costs.
If the project costs appear to be too high following the tendering process,
what steps could be taken to re-evaluate the proposals?
This question was answered by eight candidates. Marks ranged from 9 to
19.
A number of candidates clearly had first-hand experience of a complex
project requiring detailed preparation and possible re-working. Any lack of
such experience showed up in not identifying the scope, tendering
procedure or change management to deal with possible scope changes.
Better candidates included project scheduling, GANTT, PERT, Critical Path,
contingencies and the anticipation of external influences. In addition,
supplier incentives and performance management, supplier
capacity/competence and the use of cost control specialists (e.g. quantity
surveyors) were further considerations.
For the second section of the question, the examiner was seeking systems
for end user and financial approval, limit setting, regular reviews, change
control (acceptance/rejection) and tracking, rapid methodology for re-
costing etc.
For the final part several candidates identified reviewing the scope (e.g.
less automation) to reduce a cost thought to be too high. Re-evaluation of
needs and re-tendering may follow. Some candidates simply provided an
answer to running a theoretical project rather than considering this new
automated conditioning block specifically.
Question 5
Describe the factors which should be considered to ensure supplies of
malt, hops, bottles and bottle labels are maintained.
For raw materials consumed in the brewing process and for finished
stocks of packaged beer, how can quality be assured?
Fourteen candidates attempted this question with marks ranging from a
satisfactory 14 to a very poor five.
This question was poorly answered as the marks indicate with few
candidates adequately covering specifications, procurement, alternative or
dual supplier, supplier partnering arrangements and a supplier
performance review system. Further considerations should have included
forward buying, forecasting, call-offs, payment history and geographical
location.
For the second part of the question few candidates mentioned forecasting
demand to tell suppliers what the long term requirement would be but
several covered stock rotation and management backed up by
identification systems. A small number of candidates went on to include
obsolescence, storage environment, handling systems and security.
Question 6
Explain the term inherent reliability (in-built reliability) in relation to
plant performance.
How can inherent reliability be optimized?
Describe the implications for capital and revenue expenditure in seeking
a high level of inherent reliability.
Just four candidates submitted answers for this question with marks
ranging from 18 to 12.
Inherent reliability was generally fairly well understood. The examiner was
seeking an explanation along these lines: the inherent reliability is a
measure of the overall robustness of a system or piece of equipment. It
provides an upper limit to the reliability and availability that can be
achieved. In other words, no matter how much inspection or maintenance
is performed, the inherent reliability will never be exceeded.
Inherent reliability of plant or equipment can be optimized by careful
consideration during the design and build phases as well as operating
phase. Reliability practices during the design phase might include:
Zero failure design for key items critical failures are entirely
eliminated by design
Fault tolerance redundant elements switch over to a backup
or alternative mode
De-rating a component is used much below its capability
rating
Durability a component is designed to have a longer useful
life or damage tolerance
Safety margins the design allows for all applicable worst-case
stresses and margins
Fail safety design failure effects function but no injury or
additional damage
Provision of early warnings of failure through fault diagnosis
Strategies during the manufacturing, build and installation phases might
include:
Examiners Report 2013 15
 Process failure mode, effects and criticality analysis
Statistical process control
Environmental stress screening tests
Production reliability acceptance tests used to detect any
degradation in the inherent reliability of the plant over the
course of production. Also used to assure that the plant meets
the customers reliability requirements and expectations.
During the operating phase, the inherent reliability of plant or equipment
can be optimized by operating, inspecting and maintaining as well as
possible. On the other hand, if there are gaps in operating, inspection or
maintenance practices, only a lower level of the inherent reliability will be
achieved.
One method of maintain high levels of reliability is to have a system of
failure reporting, analysis and corrective action. Essentially this provides
the data used to identify deficiencies for correction to ensure that inherent
reliability is not degraded.
The implications for capital and revenue expenditure in seeking a high
level of inherent reliability were not well described. In general there will be
a higher capital cost for the initial purchase of the plant or equipment
with, over time, lower revenue cost for operating and maintaining. The
very best answers explained the principles of life cycle costing which is
highly relevant in this context.
Robin Cooper

MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2013

Module 5 Dissertation

General Comments
This is the fourth year of the dissertation format for Module 5, with 16 Abstract or Executive Summary - The inclusion of an Abstract or Executive
submissions and a step up in entries from previous years. All 16 Summary has been recommended in previous reports.
submissions achieved the required 50 % pass mark.
Background - This is a scene setter and describes the situation and
There were four dissertations that were awarded Distinctions. The context in which the project is carried out.
remaining 12 dissertations were all awarded Pass grades; of these half
Purpose - The purpose of a project is why it is being carried out. It can
were in the 50% - 60% range with one dissertation just reaching the pass
nearly always be answered by in order to .
boundary.
Success criteria - This is a list of measures or actions which support the
Choice of topic
purpose and can be used to demonstrate the degree of success of a
The examiners strongly recommend that candidates choose topics in which
project. Success criteria generally include numerical measures. They can be
they can demonstrate a good grasp of Brewing Industry Science and
measures e.g. of efficiency (OEE), financial or improvements in quality. It is
Technology within the scope of the IBD Master Brewer examination.
good practice at the end of a project to review the outcome against the
Candidates should stay clear of projects based on complex corporate
proposed success criteria. For example, the original set success criteria
initiatives - with this type of project it is difficult for the candidate to
could be to reduce the filtration loss in the brewery from 5% to 3% and
demonstrate their personal contribution to the project. Another factor is
the project review would report what was actually achieved e.g. the
that complex corporate projects are rarely, if ever, completed in the six
filtration loss was reduced from 5% to 2.8%.
month timescale allotted.
Presentation of Results and Discussion - These sections are the most
This years topics were again very diverse. The four distinctions awarded
important part of the dissertation and attract more marks than other
were all for optimisation projects within the brewery; reducing variability
sections. It is therefore advisable to ensure the results are presented in an
in primary fermentations, filtration department optimisation, improving
easy to read and structured way. Results tables, graphs and comparisons -
fermentation vessel cleaning and reduction in keg filling dissolved oxygen
where appropriate - against the project success criteria, are very
levels. Each of these dissertations had a clear and measurable benefit to
beneficial. A long list of descriptions such as: the filtration loss was
their brewery and the candidates successfully demonstrated their ability to
significantly reduced is good to know, but submissions at Master Brewer
perform at Master Brewer level.
level should contain more detail, reporting in quantitive terms the size of
Some of the poorer dissertations tended to be simpler in scope and the improvement.
challenge. Others did not go far enough in meeting the scope originally
Assessment of how the project went - Better submissions describe what
agreed with the examiner at project approval stage. The Examiners in
the candidate themselves could have done differently, and any difficulties
future intend to be more critical of project proposals that they feel will not
they had. Poorer submissions focus more on problems outside their
allow a demonstration of performance at Master Brewer level, and will
control.
advise potential candidates accordingly.
Presentation Candidates are reminded that overly long submissions of
Dissertation structure
greater than 10,000 words are likely to be penalised, which could result in
Again most candidates had read and followed previous recommendations,
a candidate missing out on a distinction award, or even at the other
and it is always useful to repeat advice from previous years as to how a
extreme, failing this module.
good submission should be structured.
Following the IBD guidelines, a dissertation should have the following
sections : Richard Westwood and Paul Buttrick

16 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2013
Examination team Robert McCaig, Ian Smith, David Cook, Marc Schmitt, Alastair Pringle, Tobin Eppard,
George Ritchie, Jacques Mayance, Brian Eaton and Andrew Barker
Module 1 Materials and Wort
The examination was sat by 410 candidates (including for the first time 21
in French language), compared with 287 candidates in 2012 and 262 in
candidates in 2011. The pass rate for the examination this year was 71%.
This compares with a pass rate in 2012 of 61% and 2011 of 52%.
The grade distribution was as follows (2012 in parenthesis):
A: 0% (2%)
B: 10% (8%)
C: 29% (18%)
D: 32% (24%)
E: 16% (22%)
F: 8% (16%)
G: 5% (10%)
Once again the Examiners request that you number each question that you
have answered clearly in the examination booklet as well as marking on
the front of the examination booklet what questions were attempted, for
example, Q1, Q2 etc., in this way sections or parts of answers will not get
mixed up. It is also better if the candidate starts each question on a fresh
page and on the lined page only!
The very best candidates showed an ability to write quickly, legibly and
clearly and using diagrams that were sized correctly and labelled
accurately. Troubling trends noted this year included (i) some candidates
failure to recognize what the question was asking and (ii) the failure of
candidates to harmonize the possible points versus their answer e.g.
writing a brilliant four page answer for a question worth 5 marks, while
writing three lines for one that scored 10 marks. Some candidates have
difficulty in writing legibly or coherently which make it much more difficult
for the examiner to assess their paper. In the case of those candidates that
were close to pass/fail this inability may have been an impediment to
receiving a passing grade.
There was little obvious reading around the subject. Candidates are
encouraged to read the numerous appropriate review articles in the
Brewer & Distiller International, Journal of the Institute of Brewing and
those lodged in the IBD Learning Zone. Many suppliers also provide high
quality information via their websites and information packs.
Question 1
Describe, with the use of a diagram, the structure of the barley grain and
the functional significance of the main physiological features (10)
Briefly describe the physiological differences between two row and six
row barley varieties (5)
Describe the three different stages in barley grain development and
graph the evolution of the starch, protein and sucrose components of the
developing grain (5)
This question was attempted by 234 candidates (78%). In the first part of
the question a diagram was essential to achieve top marks. This would be
expected to accurately identify the embryo, starchy endosperm, and husk
and delineate the testa, pericarp, aleurone layer, scutellum, micropylar
region, coleoptiles and coleorhizae. Regrettably many candidates then
forgot to briefly describe the function of those identified components. In
the second part, the Examiner was looking for an understanding of the
evolution of the two barley types from the triad of florets that arise along
the plant rachis. In two-rowed, only the central spikelet develops into a
seed, one grain per node develops on rachis and therefore two rowed
barley ear. In six-rowed all three spikelets are fertile so three grains at
each node and therefore six-row. The Examiner was also looking for
differences such as six-rowed being thinner with a twist, lower in extract
and higher in enzyme titre. In the third part, many candidates did not read
the question, giving descriptions of the growth of the plant, to germination
of the seed. The question asked was about barley grain development, and
the three stages are milk, dough and mature stage. Use of a diagram was
essential to show seed starch, protein and sucrose values through the
stages. Top marks were received for those candidates that listed the stages
and gave details on the stage including length in days, growth and colour.
Question 2
List and explain the critical parameters that are measured to assess the
suitability of barley for malting (10)
Upon receipt of a barley at the maltings, germination energy is found to
be very low (<50%). However, the germination capacity is found to be
100%. Identify the possible reason for these results and detail procedures
to overcome the problem (5)
List and briefly describe the purpose of all of the processes involved in
malting barley (5)
This popular question was attempted by 338 candidates (87%). Again in
the first part of the question - many candidates did not answer the
question. Many spent valuable time listing the critical parameters for
finished malt. The examiner was looking for attributes for barley selection
for malting including moisture, protein content, grain size and uniformity,
germination energy, germination capacity and free from infestation. The
examiner also expected a brief reason for the importance of the
requirement (i.e. moisture, too high and possible storage issues). Many
missed the clue in Part B naming two of the criteria for malting selection,
germination energy and capacity! Most candidates correctly identified the
problem here as dormancy, although many did not detail procedures to
break dormancy such as abrasion, addition of gibberelic acid, warm
storage of the barley, and steep water additions such as hydrogen
peroxide, lime, sodium hydroxide and mineral acids. The third part of the
question was well answered, although many candidates wrote a
disproportionate number of pages for 5 marks. The examiner was looking
for storage and cleaning, steeping, germination and kilning. In steeping the
purpose is to increase the moisture content of the barley to 44 46%
through immersion in water, preparing the barley for germination. The
purpose of germination is to modify the barley for use by the brewer, and
in kilning the purpose is to stop germination to fix the components of the
malt for safe storage, as well as developing colour and malty aroma.
Question 3
Outline the role and significance of calcium in the brewing process (10)
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ion exchange and reverse
osmosis systems for the removal of inorganic ions from brewing water
(10)
This question, attempted by 305 candidates (78%). was generally well
answered. In Part A, the examiner was looking for the numerous
contributions of calcium to the process. For example in mashing where it
helps stabilize alpha amylase, promoting greater starch breakdown, higher
extract and higher attenuation. It also helps in improving extract recovery
as well as aiding in precipitation of phosphate, better protein solubilisation
and enhanced FAN. It lowers viscosity, enhancing run-off velocity, as well
as complexing with oxalate. A lower pH results in less polyphenol
extraction therefore less astringent beer. It also reduces colour formation
in the wort and reduces hop utilization but does increase hop
isomerization.
Part B was not answered as well. Many candidates gave long accounts of
how ion exchange and reverse osmosis systems are designed and operate
but did not answer the question of simply listing the advantages and
disadvantages of each system including capital cost, operating cost, health
and safety, specificity and end use.
Examiners Report 2013 17
Question 4
Discuss the range of solid adjuncts that can be used in a brewery to
provide fermentable extract (12)
Discuss the range of commercial enzymes available for use in wort
production (8)
This question was answered by 316 candidates (81%). In the first part, the
examiner was looking for details on torrified/micronized, flaked, grits and
flours and starches. Many candidates just listed the alternate cereals, such
as wheat, sorghum, oats etc. instead of the above, while others gave
detailed accounts of liquid adjuncts even though the question quite
specifically states solid adjuncts. The examiner expected brief details on
manufacturing of the adjunct type and use in brewing (i.e. into mash tun
or pre-cooking). Top marks went to those that added a chart of cereals
with their gelatinization temperatures. In the second part, the examiner
was expecting mention of heat stability of these commercial enzymes
including alpha and beta amylase and beta-glucanases. The other two
enzymes accepted were amyloglucosidase and proteases such as papain.
Good answers briefly described what the end result of using the enzyme
was in brewing (i.e. alpha amylase added to the cooker to aid in
liquefaction and increase extract recovery).
Question 5
Describe in detail, including diagrams, the design and operation of a
Lauter Tun (15)
How can the operation of the Lauter Tun and associated equipment be
optimised to maximise the strength of the wort for use in high gravity
brewing? (5)
This question, attempted by 295 candidates (72%), with the answers being
of variable quality and overall worse than would be expected for a
straightforward question asking for a description of such an important
piece of brewhouse equipment. The expectation was for a detailed and
clearly labelled diagram together with a detailed review of the equipment
design and operation.
Many of the answers lacked detail and it was obvious that many had never
seen the equipment. Several answers were also clearly based on
microbrewery equipment and several weak candidates seemed to have
very poor knowledge of the process operations. One candidate even
believed you could apply temperature programming in a Lauter Tun
suggesting confusion with mashing.
The answers to the second part were much more variable with many
candidates simply describing how the operation could be optimised in
general terms without specifically referring to the requirement to
maximise the strength of the wort for high gravity brewing. The examiner
was looking for knowledge of how to minimise the liquor usage and
maximise the kettle up gravity without unduly sacrificing the efficiency of
extract recover. The techniques included increasing the mash thickness,
using the minimum underplate foundation liquor and recirculating the first
worts. The final runnings should also be cut off early with the weak worts
either being diverted to another brew or to a weak worts recovery and
recycling system. The operational details of how this would be managed
and the risks should have been included.
Question 6
Apart from bitterness, what benefits do hops contribute to beer and the
brewing process? (12)
Describe the applications of the various hop products which are available
to facilitate the above benefits (8)
This question, attempted by 322 candidates (78%), was generally
answered well with some very good comprehensive answers. It was
disappointing though that many answers included the role of hops in
bitterness despite this clearly not being part of the question.
For the first part of the question, good answers included aroma, yeast
performance, mouth feel, anti-bacterial activity, reducing foaming during
the boil, protein coagulation, polyphenol reactions with protein to form
trub, filter media in the hop back, reduction of oxidation and staling, pH
reduction during boiling and with reduced hop compounds - resistance
to light-struck. Other reported benefits included prevention of
osteoporosis and clinical trials with rats suggesting a role in weight loss!
18 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
For part two, many candidates here chose to write text book answers
about the range of hop products available to the brewer rather than
answering the question posed, which asked them to describe applications
of hop products to facilitate benefits described in part one. Since this
explicitly excluded bitterness, several candidates wasted time through
including lengthy discussion of bittering products and their relative
utilisation efficiency. An ideal answer should have included the following;
whole hops, pelletised hops of various kinds, extracts and oils, emulsions,
reduced extracts, tannin extracts, polyphenol rich pellets and antifoam
products.
Question 7
Define the factors required for an effective boil. Discuss their importance
to downstream processing and beer quality (20)
This question, attempted by 269 candidates (65%), was generally
answered well. Some of the answers were exceptional but there were
some very limited answers, which in many cases reflected this being the
last question attempted. The structure of some of the answers was also
poor with facts scattered around the badly organised answer.
The examiner was looking for the following factors with a full description
for each of their significance to the production process. Wort sterilisation,
denaturing of enzymes, pH reduction, extraction and precipitation of
tannins and proteins, colour and flavour formation, production and
removal of volatiles, the role of reducing compounds, wort concentration,
solubilisation and isomerisation of alpha acids, hop aroma and oxalate
removal.
Question 8
Write notes on two of the following:
a. the importance of hygiene throughout the brewhouse
upstream of the wort cooler (10)
b. the methods and reasons for effective trub separation (10)
c. the reasons for having a limit to the final running gravity at
the wort separation stage (10)
This question, attempted by 230 candidates (56%), was poorly answered
with many candidates exhibiting a depressing lack of knowledge.
A multiple part question was set last year and was poorly answered as
well. In this case the candidates were allowed to choose two from three
parts of the question but the answers were still very poor. Does this
demonstrate that many candidates prepare answers to what they consider
the likely questions instead of gaining a good knowledge of the entire
brewhouse process and plant?
Further some candidates displayed bad examination technique by
attempting to answer all three parts when only two were required. In such
cases the examiner simply marked the first two answers and ignored the
last!
Of the three a, was particularly poorly answered, with an alarming lack of
knowledge of ATNC which ironically was part of the last years paper.
Several candidates seemed confused by usage of the term upstream of
the wort cooler and talked about the precise opposite i.e. downstream.
Many candidates were also tempted to write an essay about brewhouse
CIP rather than answer the question which actually asked about the
importance of brewhouse hygiene. The answer should have included that
the process should be hygienic and wholesome as the product was going
to be consumed. Infection could lead to high levels of ATNC, off flavours
and taints, poor cleaning could lead to inefficiency with the fouling of
heating surfaces, pest and infestations could cause serious issues, the by-
products such as the spent grains are often fed to animals and could
therefore enter the food chain. Good answers would note where
appropriate that there is legislation about food production in most
countries.
The second part was generally the best answered with some good
answers. Two or three candidates described how the whirlpool draws
together protein and hops which seems both strange and technically
inappropriate. It was obvious that many candidates simply did not
understand how the trub cone is formed in the whirlpool due to the forces
applied. A good answer would have described the formation of trub, the
reasons for removal together with the role of kettle finings. They would
then have described a hop back, whirlpool, kettle whirlpool, decanter
centrifuge, disk centrifuge, inclined screen, strainers, hop back and
floatation. Finally the options on trub disposal would have been noted.
Finally part c was surprisingly poorly answered with many very shallow
answers such as to prevent the extraction of undesirable material. The
examiner was looking for the candidate to set typical limits to the final
DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2013
Module 2 Yeast and Beer
In all there were 287 submitted scripts, which is a large increase from the
209 marked in 2012. This is the first year that examinations were set and
marked in French. Eighteen papers were marked and moderated
collaboratively between new French-speaking Examiners and current
Examiners and moderator.
Following an established and effective process, a common marking scheme
was agreed and the papers were evenly split between Examiners. In all
156 candidates passed Module 2 to give a pass rate of 54%, which is a
significant increase over the previous year. We believe that ambiguity in
questions was greatly reduced through the robust nature of the question
setting process, including multiple reviews by Examiners and moderator.
This effort may be contributing to the improved pass rate, and as well
resulting in reduced numbers of scripts in the F/G/E range.
An analysis of questions that were answered and the corresponding pass
rate is provided in Table 1. Only four candidates elected not to answer Q4,
which also provided the highest overall pass rate of 83%! Four questions
(Q1, Q3, Q6, Q7) were answered by more than 86% (and higher) of the
candidates with Q2 the least popular with 28%.
Table 1: Performance by question
Question Answered by Passed by Passed %
1 252 151 60.0
2 80 29 36.0
3 262 105 40.1
4 283 235 83.0
5 143 65 45.5
6 247 126 51.0
7 252 73 29.0
8 159 53 33.3
In addition to the preparing for success top tips (see www.ibd.org.uk), it
is a good strategy for study to ..
1. Be able to define the subject what is it?
2. Be able to describe the subject why is it important?
3. Be able to articulate methods to control or modify (the topic in
context) to understand the pro/cons involved.
4. Read beyond the IBD revision notes. These resources provide a
higher level of depth that not only demonstrates clearer
understanding of the material, but also provides a solid platform for
professional and practical application.
Questions and answers
As ever we provide some pointers for candidates, mentors and trainers.
The questions and answers are firmly based on the syllabus. The revision
notes provide a firm grounding, but understanding is key to success.
Learning and then replaying them especially when irrespective of context
does not guarantee success. Regrettably and increasingly there was
trend to memorize - almost exactly and repeatably among many scripts -
portions of the IBD learning materials. While acceptable, this approach
only meets minimal expectations of the examination. Wider reading
develops a better understanding, and knowledge resulting in more assured
examination success. Whilst memorization may be important in the
reduction of very poor scripts, it drives average performance rather than
the preferred higher performance.
Reading around the subject can make a huge difference. Read the popular
runnings gravity and also include the role of pH increase and how the
correct levels of calcium in the liquor can alleviate this to some extent.
They would then discuss the issues with tannin extraction, lipid extraction,
high molecular weight nitrogen compounds, particles, wort dilution and
the lower fermentability of the last runnings.
Robert McCaig and Ian Smith
brewing press particularly the readable articles linked to Diploma content.
Similarly, PDFs of useful articles can be sourced from the IBD website (see
http://www.ibdlearningzone.org.uk).
Overall
The aim of the Examiners was to test both the breadth and depth of the
candidates knowledge in the materials covered by the syllabus.
Accordingly candidates who studied the entire syllabus were more likely to
be successful. Notably candidates who prepared selectively struggled to
answer their last two questions this was seen consistently across many
scripts this year.
Some candidates spent time regurgitating information from the revision
notes. Further, in a number of cases information was not asked in the
question and accordingly did not gain marks. Similarly candidates were
not rewarded for answers that were vague or included unqualified terms
such as vigorous, healthy, solid, enhances, right level, etc. Some
used imprecise descriptions, such as yeast will take amino acids,
transaminate them and slap the nitrogen into carbon shells.
Question 1
Write brief notes on the following organelles within the brewing yeast
cell (10)
a. Nucleus
b. Mitochondrion
c. Vacuole
d. Cell Wall
e. Plasma Membrane
Draw a labelled diagram showing the stages of the yeast growth curve
during a brewery fermentation and write brief notes on each (10)
This was one of the most answered questions and generally was well
answered by most. Successful candidates described each organelle and its
function within the brewing yeast cell. Some candidates mistakenly
described the function of the mitochondrion during aerobic respiration. In
addition, some were confused as to the functions of the plasma
membrane and cell wall in transportation of nutrients.
The second part required a drawing of the growth curve and a description
of each phase of the yeast growth curve i.e. lag, logarithmic, stationary and
death. Successful candidates correctly described the uptake of oxygen
during the lag phase for the synthesis of lipids, outlining their role and
importance in the plasma membrane together with the impact of lipid
dilution on cell division.
Question 2
Using flow charts and notes, describe how the following microorganisms
can be characterized in the brewery laboratory after they have been
isolated (8 )
a. Obesumbacterium
b. Lactobacillus
c. Brettanomyces
d. Acetobacter
Describe three different tests for the genetic characterization of yeast,
including their advantages and disadvantages (12)
This was the least answered question, which is surprising as microbial
contamination across the process is an on-going concern to product
integrity. Indeed an appropriate knowledge of microbiology is key to
Examiners Report 2013 19
successful brewing operations. Those successful candidates were able to
draw and describe a flow chart, which involved the identifying these
organisms. These flow charts involved tests such as Gram stain, catalase
test, oxidase test, as well as selective and differential agars.
Most candidates who attempted the second part of the question were
able to describe three methods for genetic characterization. These
methods included DNA fingerprinting methodology such as RFLP, PCR, and
karyotyping. Successful candidates were able to describe the basis of the
test and at least one advantage and disadvantage of each.
Question 3
Describe how each of the following factors affect yeast growth,
fermentation performance and final beer flavour (20)
a. Assimilable nitrogen
b. Fermentation temperature
c. Oxygenation rate/level
d. Wort lipid levels
The majority of candidates answered this question. Successful candidates
were able to provide a description of the impact of each of the factors on
yeast growth, fermentation and the flavour of the final beer. In case of
wort lipids the answers were similar to those of oxygen. No additional
points were given for diagrams of amino acid synthesis, and imprecise
statements such as oxygen enhances yeast performance or nitrogen is
needed for healthy yeast.
Question 4
Draw a diagram of a cylindroconical fermentation vessel, labeling the
operational features and briefly describe their function (10)
Write brief notes on five operational advantages of the cylindroconical
fermentation vessel (10)
This was the most popular question of this years paper. It was
straightforward and generally well answered. In the first part successful
candidates were able to draw an accurate diagram of a cylindroconical
fermenter and label the relevant parts such as cooling jackets on the side
and cone, spray ball, carbon dioxide collection inlet/outlet etc. Some
candidates confused a CCV with a unitank; the latter being used when
primary fermentation and maturation occur in the same vessel which is
pressurized.
In the second part marks were awarded for describing five operational
advantages of a cylindroconical fermenter. These included strength,
footprint, automated CIP, faster fermentation, better sanitation, etc.
However, many missed the significance and importance of cone cooling for
yeast health.
Question 5
With reference to the diagram below, describe the working principles of
separation using a centrifuge in removing solids from beer. Explain how
the disk design aids solids separation according to Stokes Law (15)
Outline three potential drawbacks of this process, and how they can be
overcome (5)
Candidates were required to provide a mathematical description of Stokes
Law, and be able to relate this to the yeast separation process. Good
descriptions provided an explanation of each factor and its impact to the
rate of settling. Some candidates also noted that the distance between
the disks where separation occurs is a significant factor in the rapid settling
process.
Competent answers included an understanding of the internal structure of
the centrifuge together with some insight into the path in which the beer
flows.
Question 6
Describe the sources of polyphenols, their oxidation, and their respective
role in the formation of beer haze (15)
Describe the principles of three methods of beer colour analysis (5)
Good answers included a thorough description of processes that
contribute polyphenol during the wort production and subsequent
processes. This included the contribution of malt and hops, which can be
oxidized during the wort boiling process, or via direct oxidation including
the action of divalent cations such as iron or copper.
A clear understanding was expected of the oxidation process, resulting
20 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
polymerization and interaction with sensitive proteins. Good descriptions
detailed the mechanism of temporary and permanent of chill haze.
With part 2, many candidates successfully understood and could fully
describe the methods of beer colour analysis. Marks were awarded for a
technical description of each method including the Lovibond comparator,
spectrophotometric analysis and Tristimulus.
Question 7
Write brief notes on the following two subjects
a.) The components in beer that cause gushing, and outline steps in
the production process to eliminate its effects (10)
b.) Best practice in the storage of pitching yeast (10)
This was a very popular question, although strangely it resulted in the
lowest overall average mark. Good responses outlined the importance of
oxalate crystal formation and factors that influence extraction of this
material. Descriptions of how higher molecular weight polypeptides and
deoxynavalenol (DON) contribute to gushing were also expected.
Methods to control gushing included measures to eliminate or control
mould development during barley growth and subsequent storage. An
understanding of how calcium increases precipitation of oxalate, resulting
in elimination via settling or filtration, as well as reducing the oxalate
content via controlling extraction by maintaining a low pH during wort
separation.
Additional marks were also awarded for candidates that outlined other
contributing factors such as hop factor and influence of metal ions. Any
mention of predictive testing was also rewarded.
The second part of the question pertaining to best practices in the storage
of pitching yeast was well covered by a great majority of the candidates.
We can think of no better use of resources than to effectively manage
yeast health between fermentation operations which in turn provide great
benefit to the fermentation process and consistency. The basics include
the preservation of purity in terms of strain and the management of
viability/vitality through the use of the following simple strategies: 1.)
Condition and cleanability of the plant and storage brinks, and sanitation
processes which eliminate unwanted biological contribution, including the
use of Clean in Place systems, 2.) Storage of collected yeast at or near 0C
(2-5C is acceptable). 3.) Low shear agitation to facilitate the cooling of the
yeast and minimization of oxygen entrainment which will encourage the
mobilization of storage carbohydrate such as intracellular glycogen,
thereby ultimately reducing the overall health as reflected in viability and
vitality measurements. 4.) Maintenance of temperature via adequate
cooling methods (usually through jacketed vessels usually cooled by a
solution of propylene glycol). 5.) Dilution of yeast slurry to reduce alcohol
toxicity is recommended by the use of either beer, or deaerated/cooled
brewing liquor, which has also the added benefit of reducing yeast
viscosity and improving mixing and CO2 reduction during the filling and
cooling process.
Question 8
Describe in details the theory of chemical cleaning applied to beer
contact surfaces, including a description of the soils and the materials
used to remove them (10)
Provide a detailed description of the chemicals used to sanitize beer
contact surfaces and their mechanism of action (10)
Good responses pointed out that the removal of organic and inorganic
soils via effective cleaning processes provide a degree of product and plant
safety as well as outlining the component structure of inorganic and
organic soils as required. The theory of chemical cleaning should include
an understanding of balance relative to time, temperature and
concentration of the cleaning agent as related to cleaning efficacy.
A description of action and type including the use of alkaline agents
noting effective concentration ranges, such as caustic solutions containing
wetting agents (such as sodium polyphosphate), including either sodium or
potassium hydroxide or other alkaline agents such as sodium carbonate or
silicate. This should also include a description of chelants and surfactants
which work in conjunction with the base alkali, and their effect upon
organic soils was required. Methods to remove inorganic salt deposition
via acidic cleaning agents, also including surfactants and sequesterants,
was expected.
When considering methods of chemical sanitation, successful candidates functions by oxidizing enzymes and amino acids in membranes.
described agents available for use, and their basis of action and effective
Overall, we would like to point out and encourage a higher level of focus
concentration ranges. For example when utilizing acidified iodine in the
be given within the general subject of brewery microbiology as we believe
form of I2, which may be either citric or phosphoric acid based as a
it to be essential regarding success within a brewery on a day-to-day basis.
sanitizing agent, the effective range of concentration for non-rinsing is
25ppm. Iodine works similarly to other halogens as it disrupts cellular
Alastair Pringle and Tobin Eppard

DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2013

Module 3 Packaging and Process Technology

The Module 3 examination was sat by 186 candidates - an increase of 12 SECTION A Packaging Technology
candidates on the 174 candidates who sat in 2011. The pass rates, grades
and details of candidates performance on individual questions are shown Question 1
in the tables below. Outline the range of keg types available to the present-day brewer.
Describe their major features and the advantages and disadvantages of
Overall Pass/Fail and Grades each keg design (6)
Passed Candidates %
Explain, with the use of a diagram how the spear (extractor) enables beer
Grade A 18 9.7
to be dispensed from a keg (4)
B 28 15.0
C 37 19.9 For ONE type of keg, describe how a keg is manufactured (5)
D 34 18.3
Outline devices that are available, by attachment to the keg, for tracking
Overall Pass 117 62.9 %
kegs through the supply chain and explain how each device works (5)
Failed
Grade E* 7 3.8 Very few candidates (32) attempted this question and whilst large pack
E 28 15.0 (cask and keg), is only to be found in a few countries such as Great
F 18 9.7 Britain, Ireland, USA and Australia the topic is in the syllabus and
G 16 8.6 accordingly candidates would be well advised to study all topics. The
Overall Fail 69 37.1 % question was well answered with 81% passing.
The range of keg types was well covered stainless steel, aluminium,
Performance by Question polypropylene, plastic-sheathed stainless steel and one trip units.
Question Answered by Passed by Passed (%) There was some confusion in answers about how the spear attaches to the
1 32 26 81 keg it is not welded directly into the keg dome end. A Barnes neck is
2 151 126 83 welded onto the keg dome and it can either be internally threaded at 14
3 129 100 78 tpi to take the spear or fitted using a bayonet grove with retaining circlip.
4 115 82 71 The better answers pointed out that, if the keg is aluminium, a plastic
5 115 93 81 sleeve is required to insulate the spear from the keg as otherwise galvanic
6 105 49 47 corrosion will occur.
7 110 64 58
8 147 95 65 For keg tracking a range of devices were expected RFIDs, active and
9 61 30 49 passive, barcodes, labels and caps and direct printing onto the keg.
10 109 68 62 Question 2
General Comments Describe the precautions, both in equipment design and operating
The overall pass rate of 63% was down slightly on 2012 but it was most procedures, to minimise oxygen pick-up in beer from filtration through to
encouraging to see the ongoing increase in the Grade A passes with some final package. Answers should consider bottle, can and keg operations
exceptionally good answers. Regrettably though, there was an increase in and should outline the controls that need to be in place (20)
the bottom G category that showed a lack of understanding of both There are a lot of common factors in minimising oxygen pick-up for bottle,
packaging technology and process technology. Also from the above can and keg, and the question required you to explain these, but also to
analysis, the pass rate for the process technology questions (6 to 10) at pull-out differences for each package type. It was not necessary to repeat
58% is somewhat lower than the 79% for the packaging technology the same precautions three times and time could have been saved with
questions (1 to 5). this approach.
Candidates are reminded that to achieve a good overall pass mark, Many candidates specified that laminar beer flow was essential, but this is
candidates need to prepare well for both sections of the paper. Indeed for highly unlikely in even the best designed system. A quick calculation of
this Module, candidates must achieve a minimum standard of 35% in both Reynolds Number would show this. Using water as example, a flow of 1
Packaging Technology and in Process Technology. Consequently to metre per second in a 100m diameter pipe will give an Re of 100,000 ( x u
achieve the overall pass mark of 45%, attaining 35% in either section x d/ = 1000 x 1 x 0.1 / 0.001) and turbulent flow is likely above an Re of
requires a mark of at least 55% in the other section. Failure to achieve the 4,000. What has to be avoided is excessive turbulence and the measures
minimum standard results in the overall mark being graded at E*. that could be taken to avoid excessive turbulence were required.
Accordingly in 2013 there were 7 E* grades, all of whom failed to achieve
the minimum 35% in the process technology section. Several candidates decided that a block diagram of the flow from filtration
to package was required. Although it might have helped candidates to
It is evident that once again, there were one or two candidates who tried gather their thoughts in answering the question, such diagrams alone
to gain extra marks by answering more than 6 questions, or by answering added nothing useful to the answer.
more than three questions from either the packaging technology or In specifying the carbon dioxide purity required to minimise dissolved
process technology sections. Neither approach was successful or oxygen, it would be preferable to state the maximum level of
rewarded! contaminants rather than quoting the carbon dioxide purity as a
percentage.

Examiners Report 2013 21

Overall however it was no surprise, in light of the adverse effects of
dissolved oxygen on beer that this was the most popular and best
answered question in the paper with an 83% pass rate.
Question 3
Outline the differences in equipment required for a bottling line for glass
returnable packaging with in-package pasteurisation compared with a
line for the aseptic filling of glass non-returnable bottles (12)
Describe the important operational controls and checks that would be
required on the aseptic filling line (8)
For this question, a listing of the equipment or a fully labelled flow diagram
of the two types of line were the easiest ways to get the information
required onto paper and many candidates did this well, pointing out the
differences at each stage of the process from raw material intake to final
package.
The operational controls and additional checking required on an aseptic
line were generally well presented, covering both the requirements for the
operators and for the quality control staff. Many answers described the
provision of a sterile room for the filler/crowner (and one or two put the
whole line into such an environment), even though it is now accepted that
beer fillers do not require this level of environmental control.
Question 4
The function of packaging can be defined by the key words: Contain,
Protect, Present and Inform.
For ONE small-pack product and for ONE large-pack product, explain how
these key words are incorporated into the package design (20)
It should be clear to all candidates, who have read the syllabus and
revision notes for this examination, that small pack means bottle and
can and large pack means keg and cask. However, several candidates
chose to use multi-packs of bottles or cans as the large pack example in
this question. The Examiner marked these answers, but such leniency may
not be applied in similar situations in the future.
A number of candidates chose to use the technical and marketing
functions of packaging or the 4 Rs as their approach to this question.
This typically failed to address the key words in their answer a danger of
just following revision notes in answering a question.
Vagueness was however probably the most serious fault in answers. Such
statements as the glass bottle should be able to contain its contents fails
to say why glass is good as a primary packaging material i.e. it is inert,
strong in compression and flexible, non-tainting, impermeable (etc.) to
liquids and gases.
On the key word contain; only one candidate of those who attempted
this question mentioned the bottle as a measuring container. This is
surprising since most filling is carried out to average contents legislation,
which assumes that filling to a set level (height from the liquid level to the
top of the finish/neck) will give the correct contents. Of all the packaging
technology questions, this question had the lowest pass rate at 71%
Question 5
Using the perfect gas laws, explain how temperature, pressure, volume
and mass of a gas are inter-related (5)
Describe how the solubility of gas in beer is related to temperature and
to its partial pressure in the gas phase (5)
Beer containing 2.0 v/v of CO2 is to be flash pasteurised at 75C.
Calculate, using the data below, the minimum pressure that must be
maintained on the system (5)
Data.
At STP, one kmole of gas occupies 22.4 m3.
Henrys constant for CO2 at 75C = 437 x 103 kPa mole fraction-1
Assume beer has the same specific molecular weight as water = 18
What is the relevance of the value of this calculated pressure to the
design and operation of the flash pasteuriser? (5)
The perfect gas laws were well covered in most answers, except a number
of candidates failed to explain how the mass of gas is related. Most were
able to write that PV = nRT, but some did not go on to say that n = moles
of gas and is related to the mass (m) by its molecular weight (M), such that
m = nM.
22 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
There was some confusion too as to which gas constant was being used
the universal gas constant (R) as in the above equation or the specific gas
constant Rg where PV = mRgT.
For the second part of the question, Henrys law was well remembered,
but the change in Henrys constant with temperature was often missed, or
graphs drawn with parallel temperature lines indicative, erroneously, that
Henrys constant does not change with temperature. The calculation of the
balance pressure was well answered, except for a few who tried to use 2.2
v/v instead of 2.0 v/v (why?) and therefore failed to reach the expected
answer of 702.3 kPa.
The relevance of this pressure to flash pasteuriser design needed to
mention possible gas breakout, reduced residence time, low PUs and
potential microbiological failure and gas loss if a pressure greater than
balance is not applied. This has implications for the mechanical robustness
of the plate pack design. Best answers mentioned the use of a boost pump
after the holding tube to keep the sterile side at a higher pressure than the
non-sterile side and supplying utilities at pressures less than the product.
SECTION B Process Technology
Question 6
Discuss the importance of sub-cooling and super-heating of the
refrigerant to the efficient operation of a closed circuit vapour
compression refrigeration system. (5)
Ammonia vapour enters a refrigerator compressor slightly super-heated
at 260K and 1bar a. (100 kPa) and is compressed isentropically to 10 bar
a. The vapour condenses, losing heat to the surroundings, and is slightly
sub-cooled to 295K. The condensed liquid is then expanded through an
expansion valve to a pressure of 1 bar a. The refrigerant absorbs heat
prior to re-entering the compressor. Using a pressure-enthalpy diagram
for ammonia attached, calculate:
The heat removed from the surroundings per unit mass flow rate of
refrigerant (2)
The coefficient of performance for the refrigeration system (4)
The refrigerant mass flow rate in kg hour-1 if the refrigeration load is 100
kW (3)
With a diagram, show how refrigerant can be applied to the duty of
controlling fermentation temperature in a cylindroconical fermenter and
specify the most appropriate control system for this duty (6)
Question 6 had the lowest pass rate of the paper at only 47% but this was
not due to difficulties in reading the P-E chart, which is fairly typical of
charts that need to be read in refrigeration design. It was partly due to
how the numbers from the chart were used in the calculation, but mainly
due to some very poor diagrams of how refrigeration might be applied to a
cylindroconical fermenter a very common application in breweries? The
choices were a secondary refrigerant or direct expansion and diagrams
needed to show the cooling panels, temperature measurement and flow
control of the refrigerant. It is usual to feed cooling panels from the
bottom, with the return from the top so that air is easily removed. Better
diagrams showed zoning of the panels on the vessel for use either when
part filled or during different process stages such as fermentation or cool-
back.
The sub-cooling and super-heating part was quite well answered and
candidates picked out the salient points of increased refrigeration effect
and less risk of damage by liquid in the compressor. Inclusion of a Mollier
diagram provided a helpful explanation.
Question 7
Outline the materials and application methods to insulate vessels
operating at temperatures below ambient and explain how the integrity
of the insulation can be jeopardised if the insulation is damaged (6)
A refrigerated cold store is constructed with walls and roof of 250mm
thick concrete and a mean surface area for heat pick-up from the
environment of 1,500 m2. The store is cooled by a refrigeration system
rated at 50 kW. Assuming that there are no heat sources other than the
heat pick-up through walls and roof, and using the data given below,
calculate the internal temperature if the outside temperature is 25C (7)
Using the same data and the same external temperature, calculate the
minimum thickness of insulation that would need to be applied to both
walls and roof in order to maintain the internal temperature at -5C (7)
Data.
Thermal conductivity of concrete = 1.1 W m-1 K-1
Thermal conductivity of insulation = 0.06 W m-1 K-1
Inside film coefficient = 8 W m-2 K-1 Outside film coefficient = 17 W
m-2 K-1
In answering the first part of this question, quite a few candidates chose to
list all the insulation materials that they knew, without singling out those
that are applicable in below ambient conditions (e.g. closed cell foams).
This approach did not gain marks, but many answers covered all the
expected points of requiring a vapour barrier, avoidance of chloride
containing materials and outer protection with aluminium, plastic or
stainless steel cladding. Damage could allow moisture to infiltrate the
insulation causing loss of insulating efficiency, possible further freeze/thaw
damage and conditions for chloride-induced corrosion. An accurate and
well annotated diagram showing the various layers from tank/pipe wall to
the outer atmosphere was a good way to gain marks without too much
writing.
Common faults in the calculation were not showing working (which, if the
answer is wrong, means no marks), reversing the temperature gradient so
heat was flowing from cold to hot, and failing to show units.
Question 8
Explain the significance of a pump manufacturers requirement for a net
positive suction head (NPSH). (5)
Hot wort at 90C is being transferred from whirlpool to wort cooler by a
pump situated 3m below the whirlpool outlet. The pump has an NPSH of
6m, the whirlpool is at atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa) and the vapour
pressure of the wort at 90C is 70.1 kPa. If the pressure loss due to
friction is assumed to be no greater than 0.25m, the wort density is 1060
kg m-3 and acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m s-2, calculate the depth of
wort in the whirlpool at which pumping problems, if any, might occur
during tank emptying (10)
Explain what changes might be implemented to reduce the likelihood of
pumping problems from occurring in the above situation (5)
In answering this question, it was most evident that many candidates had
just learnt an equation to apply in NPSH calculations without really
understanding its basis and the underlying principles including the use of
the continuity equation. As a result, the explanations of NPSH were very
often incorrect. One particular phrase occurred time and time again
NPSH is the head required to overcome the difference between the
suction pressure and the vapour pressure. It is difficult to reconcile this
statement with the definition of NPSH as the safety margin (specified by
the pump manufacturer), in head terms, to be added to the limiting
condition of inlet pressure to avoid cavitation; the limiting condition being
when the pressure is equal to the vapour pressure.
In the calculation, there was confusion with the units of pressure kPa
versus Pa, and surprisingly several candidates chose to use their own
figures for the atmospheric pressure and vapour pressure, 100kPa and 70
kPa respectively, rather than using the given values, 101.3 kPa and 70.1
kPa. Both these approaches gave the wrong answer and lost marks.
The changes that could be made to avoid cavitation, which would occur
when 0.25 metres of wort remain in the whirlpool, were generally well
covered and were often the saviour of an otherwise mediocre answer.
Although picking up on the previous point of the failure to understand
what NPSH means, several candidates erroneously thought that a pump
with a higher NPSH would be better.
Question 9
With the use of a diagram, describe briefly the components of a single
closed-loop control system and the function of each component (4)
Describe a typical situation in a brewery where a) on-off control and b)
continuous control would be the best choice of system and explain the
reason for the choice (8)
Give one example, with a simple diagram, of a) a feedback control-loop
and b) a feed-forward control-loop and explain the suitability of each
control for a particular situation (8)
This was the least popular process technology question and generally
poorly answered with a 49% pass rate. The question was asking for
explanation of the basics of control systems, so it was worrying how few
candidates were able to do a competent job of answering this question.
For the first part, a diagram and explanation of measure-compare with set
point calculate error compute action correct was all that was
required.
In part two, on-off control is suited for applications with a long lag time
between action and movement of the variable and when fine control is not
essential. Probably the best example is temperature control of
fermentation in large vessels. There were a number of candidates who
described on-off switching, for example turning a light, pump or valve on
and off, but with no measurement. This is not on-off control, but adding a
photocell to decide when to switch on and off the light would have made it
on-off control.
Continuous control is used for many applications heat exchangers, beer
dilution etc. - and particularly where lag times are short and fine control is
required without offset. Feedback and feed forward loops are textbook
answers, yet it was surprising how many candidates chose to
overcomplicate their answers with cascade loops and ratio control loops,
which were not required.
As a general comment, the control diagrams presented were often poorly
drawn, too small and with no differentiation between the process lines
containing the fluids and the control lines. Also there were too many black
boxes labelled as process or system with no detail to explain what they
were or how they worked.
Question 10
Explain, with the use of simple diagrams, the design and flow
characteristics of the following types of valve and their typical use in the
brewery (12) Globe valve
Butterfly valve
Diaphragm valve
Explain the principles of operation of a centrifugal pump (3)
Briefly outline duties in the brewery for which the centrifugal pump
would be unsuitable (2)
Using a simple diagram, explain how leakage to/from atmosphere is
prevented along the drive shaft of a centrifugal pump and the effect that
leakage might have on pump efficiency and beer quality (3)
Here candidates lost marks for poor diagrams and a lack of explanation of
the key features and characteristics of valves.
There were two areas of confusion when drawing and describing valves:
firstly a diaphragm pump and a diaphragm valve are not the same thing
and a globe valve is not a ball valve. True that our earth is a globe and ball
shaped, but not all globes are balls!
In explaining the operation of a centrifugal pump, diagrams were not
requested but could help the explanation provided they were well drawn.
However very few candidates were able to explain the principles of
operation; that the impellor rotating at high speed imparts kinetic energy
to the liquid, which is thrown outwards radially into the volute of gradually
increasing flow area, The kinetic energy converts to pressure energy in the
volute (Bernoulli). Smooth flow is achieved by vanes on the impellor,
which can be either open or closed. The impellor is direct coupled to an
electric motor on a common shaft. Centrifugal pumps are not self-priming
since air in the casing is too low in density to generate sufficient kinetic
energy to overcome the suction lift.
Examples of unsuitable applications for centrifugal pumps are CIP
scavenge pumps (unless self-priming), high pressure applications (unless
multi-staged), pumping liquids of high viscosity and for metering (no
metering capability).
The final part of this question was very poorly answered and it was clear
that very few candidates had ever thought about what kept the fluid inside
a centrifugal pump and prevented leakage along the shaft. There are two
options: stuffing boxes or carbon faced mechanical seals, with or without
steam, water or process fluid flushing. Diagrams were generally poor but
answers on the effect of leakage were better.
Brian Eaton
Examiners Report 2013 23
 DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2013

Examination team George Bathgate, Douglas Murray, Michelle Pizzi, Iain Campbell
and Alan Wolstenholme

Module 1 Materials and Fermentable Wort Cereal

This year there were 34 candidates for the 2013 Module 1 (cereal) Diploma
module and 30 passed comfortably (89% pass rate).
The Examiners however were concerned with the wide discrepancy
between the average pass mark of 58% and the average of the four
candidates who achieved a fail (44%) of whom two also failed the multiple
choice questions in section A. It was apparent that these candidates had
not prepared themselves adequately for this level of qualification.
There was only one grade A pass (>75%) and 10 grade B passes (65-74%).
Only four of these 11 people passed all of their chosen questions as well as
both sets of multiple choice sections.
This year, section A was compiled of molasses and grape based multiple
choice questionnaire (MCQ) questions, and section B, candidates were
asked to choose five cereal essay style questions to answer out of seven.
The purpose of the MCQ used in section A of the examination is to test the
candidates overall/wider knowledge of the other categories of substrates
(outside of their chosen elective). Most candidates passed (71% pass rate)
but only four candidates obtained an overall A grade. It is apparent that
many candidates are still reliant on their elected discipline and are putting
insufficient effort into broadening their wider knowledge so as to do well
in the other disciplines.
The questions in section B were answered well in only a few cases. The
highest pass marks for all of the questions was in the order of 83-90%.
However, few candidates managed to do well in all five questions they had
chosen (and only seven candidates passed all of the five questions chosen).
Thus indicating that candidates are choosing to prepare themselves in
certain areas more, or leaving their studying till the last minute. A few
candidates stood out from the crowd! These demonstrated that they had
dome more work in preparation than focus their activity on the IBD
revision notes. At the other extreme, it was most disappointing to find
there were candidates at this level - confusing barley and malt, or being
unable to provide more than a three-line answer to an essay question.
Question 1
Give an account of how the development of new barley varieties has
benefitted the distilling industry and describe how the breeding, testing
and seed multiplication of such varieties is presently carried out (20)
This question was attempted by 24 candidates and passed by 22 (average
score of 70%). Most candidates attempted to create the diagram provided
in the revision notes for a general breeding programme. Unfortunately,
only few candidates correctly presented all the details, stages and
observations associated with the different steps of the programme.
Good marks were obtained by candidates who also gave a detailed list of
the agronomic characteristics needed in new varieties versus the
requirements of the various stakeholders (farmers, maltster, grain/malt
distiller). They also gave examples of more recent varieties that provided
these characteristics, as well as typical quantitative increases observed in
predicted spirit yield (PSY) and diastatic power (DP) etc. in more recent
years.
While many candidates gave a few characteristics of newer varieties (e.g.
increased PSYs, higher thousand corn weight and rapid/even endosperm
modification), many forgot to mention and describe molecular biology
techniques that can now be involved in breeding and testing.
Only one candidate mentioned the benefits and implications of carrying
out breeding programmes in different parts of the globe.
Question 2
Describe, in detail, a malting schedule (i.e. from barley to kilned malt)
with appropriate process and quality control procedures, for a maltings
with separate steeping, germination and kilning vessels, in order to
maximise fermentable extract (20)
The vast majority of candidates attempted this question (33 candidates),
and most passed (the average score was 67%). Encouragingly twelve
candidates achieved higher than 70% for this question.
Many gave examples of typical barley and malt analyses/results from the
start to the end of the malting process together with a basic outline of the
process and associated temperatures to look for.
For those who performed less well, it was clear that they focussed mainly
on distilling and distillery processes for their revision and had limited
exposure or knowledge of barley and maltings processes. Revealingly, a
few candidates got mixed up between barley and malt, as well as steeping
and germination and what happened during these steps of the process.
Candidates that scored well not only answered the question in a customer
focussed way but gave a methodical account of all that was needed for
each step of the process with examples of both typical process and quality
checks along the way.
Many forgot about the need for visual/smell tests and barley screening.
Most people could give some information for a basic example of a steeping
and germination schedule. However, only a third of candidates were able
to give accurate and full examples of these and what to look for at each
step.
Finally kilning was covered to a satisfactory level, with bonus marks
awarded to candidates that detailed the need to avoid stewing, and
covered the effects of peating (from both a process and laboratory
perspective).
Question 3
What are the mashing conditions which would cause a loss of
fermentable extract in a malt distillery and explain why such conditions
would lead to a drop in yield when using a malt which otherwise met all
purchase specifications? (20)
This question was answered poorly by the majority of candidates, with a
greater gap between those that did well and those that failed. This
question was attempted by 33 candidates but only passed by 14. The
majority of those that passed achieved above 60% with the highest scorers
achieving 83%.
Candidates that did well methodically discussed all elements of mashing
water, grist, mashing process parameters together with the conditions that
could affect yield and what typical values for each of these should be for
different mashing systems. In addition, they gave examples of non-typical
mashing parameters, detailing for each how it would affect the process,
enzyme activity etc. Only a few candidates remembered to include the
need to cool wort fast enough to ensure enzyme activity was preserved for
secondary conversion.
Those candidates that did not do as well chose not to the answer the
question directly and delivered unrequired detail about milling, including
drawing different types of mills. Whilst doubtless an attempt to try to
catch some marks, this resulted in lost time to answer the rest of the
question adequately.
It is most disappointing that so many candidates performed poorly in this
question, as mashing is a key part of the process (and the syllabus), which
requires some basic knowledge.

24 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Question 4
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various types of un-malted
cereal preparation in distilling. Discuss the associated processes required
for these types of technology (20)
This question was also answered poorly and separated those that had
question spotted (or focussed on malt distilling) from those that had put
appropriate and wide ranging effort into their preparation. The number of
candidates that attempted this question was 22. The average score
obtained by those candidates that passed (12 candidates) was 74%, but
the average obtained by those that failed was only 33%.
The Examiners were looking for candidates to cover maize, wheat, rye and
barley as a minimum for the types of un-malted cereals. Candidates that
answered this question well gave advantages and disadvantages from a
cost, availability, processing, quality/composition and energy perspective
for each of these.
Continuous and batch processes were discussed and compared in detail
with the aid of drawings. Candidates that excelled at this question also
covered low temperature mashing and enzyme additions.
Question 5
Describe the processing of malted barley in both grain and malt distilling,
from intake to mashing-in, including all the Process Control and Health
and Safety measures which have to be taken (20)
Question 5 was attempted by all but 1 candidate. Although more than
two-thirds of candidates passed this question half of these only just
managed to pass (the average pass mark was 55%). At the other end of the
scale, 6 candidates commendably achieved greater than 70%.
Most candidates answered this question with the aid of process overview
diagrams, diagrams of different types of mills together with grist ratios
suitable for the different mashing methods. Many though forgot the need
for sampling malt pre-cleaning, dust control and metal detection, as well
as the option of wet milling.
Module 1 Materials and Fermentable Wort Molasses
For the second year, the module 1 molasses option exam was sat by only
four candidates. All passed, with two at grade B and two at grade C. The
multiple choice section results showing a limited level of understanding of
the sections on non-molasses and the wider spirits industry. The marks on
this part of the exam exhibited a barely acceptable knowledge of grape
and cereal derived spirits. In general the cereal knowledge was higher than
that for grape. This is disappointing as these questions are set at the
general certificate standard. For the written questions, most candidates
gave answers that showed very good levels of knowledge of the subject
and all candidates did supply the level of detail required to achieve good
marks at the diploma level. Due to the disappointingly low number of
candidates the following review does not detail the number attempting
each question.
Question 1
Describe, for two of the following,
sugar cane
sugar beet
sweet sorghum
the factors affecting when to harvest, the harvesting techniques used,
the impact these factors have on alcohol yield and the disposal route for
by-products from them (20)
The average mark was 14.5 and all candidates gave satisfactory answers
covering the areas outlined in the question. All candidates commented on
sugar cane and sugar beet. This was a straightforward question on the
growing, harvesting and processing of the main raw material types. Marks
were lost through not providing detail and making generalisations.
Question 2
Describe the key microorganisms that can be present in molasses, the
impact they have on processing from raw material to spirit distillation
and on final spirit quality (20)
Question 6
List the principal mineral salts which can be present in mashing water
and describe what effects, both positive and negative, they may have on
a malt distillery wort (20)
Only five candidates attempted to answer this question. This is perhaps
telling of the depth of knowledge candidates feel they have in this area.
That said the three candidates that passed all achieved above 70%.
However, one paper, which gave an excellent account for a wide range of
minerals, was answered from a brewing perspective (and with brewing in
mind)!
There are many reading materials in the brewing and distilling literature
that candidates can use to broaden their knowledge in this area.
Question 7
Describe in detail how a reliable prediction of distillery spirit yield can be
derived from the laboratory analysis of malted barley (20)
This question was attempted by 24 candidates. Although two candidates
achieved over 72%, only ten passed. Of those that failed (14 candidates)
the average achieved was only 26%.
Most candidates could remember the basic equation to calculate predicted
spirit but also needed to explain what each of these elements mean, the
methods by which they can be obtained and give examples of what would
be considered good values in each of these cases.
Candidates that did well also took into consideration representative
sampling, reproducibility, repeatability, method tolerances, and discussed
alternative methods that are also now being used (e.g. NIR spectroscopy).
They also explained how to achieve a PSY not only for malt but for grain
distilling as well.
This is clearly an area most candidates are not spending enough time on
and has demonstrated that many candidates only have a superficial
understanding of basic lab analysis within the distilling industry.
Michelle Pizzi
This question should be straightforward for diploma candidates and the
average mark was 13.5. The omission of wild yeasts from some answers
reduced the overall score. In addition the impact on final spirit was not
well answered and it should be noted in an answer where a microorganism
has no impact on processing or spirit quality.
Question 3
Sugar cane and sugar beet molasses can be deficient in nitrogen,
phosphorus and B-vitamins. Outline the impact each of these have on
the process and how a distiller may rectify the deficiency, including
sources and addition rates (20)
All candidates gave acceptable answers with an average mark of 12.
Nitrogen and phosphorus deficiency were well covered whilst B-vitamin
deficiency was not. Some candidates gave only an answer for either beet
or cane molasses when in some cases a comment on both feed materials
was required to achieve maximum marks. As this knowledge is central to
operating a molasses distillery the Examiner was expecting this question to
be very well answered.
Question 4
Discuss the sources of yeast and bacteria and the methods of selection
and addition for use in the production of light and dark rum (20)
This question had an average score of 13.3 and the quality of answers
were mixed with some very good and others below borderline. This
question asked the candidate to exhibit a level of knowledge on a
fundamental part of the process. Good answers discussed the various
sources of yeast and bacteria and combined this with why they were
selected in terms of rum type. Some candidates gave generic answers with
no detail on yeast source or strains. Low marks were also scored by
candidates who failed to discuss the method of addition.
Examiners Report 2013 25
Question 5
Describe, with the aid of flow diagrams, how different types of sugar
cane molasses are made and the suitability for use as a raw material to
the distiller (20)
The average mark for this question was 14.0 reflecting a mix of good and
borderline. This was surprising as candidates who work in the molasses
spirit industry should have no problem describing the process of how
molasses is made from sugar cane and the different styles of molasses this
system produces. The process was generally well described but suitability
for use was in some cases absent from the answer.
Question 6
Define, in relation to analytical data, the terms
normal distribution (4)
standard deviation (4)
variance. (4)
Discuss the need and relevance of inter-laboratory collaborative
checks (8)
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2013
Module 2 Fermentation, Distillation and Maturation
Thirty-one candidates sat the Module 2 examination (up from fourteen in
2012) but regrettably only 18 passed, 6 at grade C and 12 at D. A pass rate
of 56% compares unfavourably with last years 71%. A failure rate of 44%,
absence of any passes at grades A or B and a module average mark of only
46.4% are individually and collectively disappointing results. Another
further and disappointing metric is that only three of the eight questions
produced an average mark of pass grade, and one of these was exactly on
the pass/fail border.
As a long-term Examiner coupled with the robust examination setting
process, there is no debate that this examination was any more difficult
than in previous years. However several questions tested different aspects
from recent questions on the same topics. Many of the poorly-marked
answers gave lots of factually correct information that did not answer this
year's version of the question and therefore scored low marks. Was this
the result of using a previous paper for practice and then using the same
answer for a different question? Whilst such preparation is obviously
worthwhile it is only part of the armoury of preparation for examinations.
So, candidates please read the question carefully and answer what is
actually asked, not what you would prefer it to be.
Whilst a good thing that some candidates are progressing from GCD to
Diploma, it is regrettable that some of the answers appear to be based on
GCD teaching materials. Since the Diploma is a more advanced
examination, the GCD revision literature will be insufficient to support a
pass. The Diploma in Distilling requires a higher level of knowledge,
examined mainly by essays, which tend to be on a specific aspect of the
syllabus. For example, the main part of the question on maturation, 7 (b),
asked how to maximise maturation effects. A general essay on
maturation, or even worse, just a list or table of maturation changes,
would not be a satisfactory answer. A good answer required both
knowledge of maturation in general and the initiative to select the
appropriate material for the specified discussion. Further with essay
answers a well-developed argument is likely to score a better mark than
the same facts offered in random order. Writing good essays requires
practice, and that is an important part of preparation for the examination.
Further many of the poorer answers - already destined to fail - made an
even worse impression by disorganised and untidy presentation. A little
extra effort to give information in a neat and logical way could favourably
influence a border-line mark.
These are general comments on the module examination as a whole.
Further comments below concern answers to the individual questions.
26 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
The average mark for this question was 11.7, suggesting that most
candidates were not overly familiar with these terms. This question gained
the lowest scores of all 7 questions. This subject is one that is a
fundamental requirement of people who wish to interpret data and apply
knowledge in a scientific way to data collected by the spirit industry. On a
positive note the need for inter-laboratory collaborative checks was
answered well by most candidates.
Question 7
Discuss the typical analysis contained in a sugar cane molasses
purchasing contract. State why the analysis is included and what the
typical range of each would expected to be. Your answer should include
the impact on the process of a deliver being out with range stated (20)
The average mark for this score was 17.3 and was the best-answered
question of all. Again this knowledge is expected of a distiller at diploma
level and this was reflected in the answers. With at least 12 analyses to
select and to discuss, a high score was possible with a good knowledge of
what is included in a specification. Some marks were lost by not clearly
stating the impact on the process of being out of specification.
Douglas Murray
Question 1
Describe the structure of the cell wall and cytoplasmic membrane (cell
membrane) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and explain their roles in
metabolism and growth (20)
As an absolute minimum the following points had to be described and
explained: cell wall, a rigid permeable cover, mainly glucan and mannan, but
also the site of important enzymes, e.g. invertase; membrane: a
phospholipid bilayer with sterols and unsaturated fatty acid phospholipids,
and transport enzymes controlling entry and exit of nutrients and
metabolites. Given the difficulty of providing adequate explanation by words
alone, several diagrams were also required for a good answer. Some
answers expanded on 'growth' by explaining the role of the wall and
membrane in the budding process. Unfortunately the 24 answers scored an
average mark of only 8.3/20, with a pass rate of only 58% and no candidate
scoring higher than 12/20. Too little information or too many mistakes in the
information provided were the main reasons for this disappointing outcome.
Question 2
Give an account of the metabolism of sugars in aerobic growth of distillery
yeast (as in a propagation plant) and anaerobic fermentation, and discuss
the biochemical implications of the differences between these metabolic
pathways (20)
Again, answers varied widely in quality. Metabolic pathways ranged from a
brief overview to the expected account of the successive steps of complete
aerobic oxidation to fermentation to ethanol (and pyruvate). Some
candidates provided little or no comment on the significance of the
differences between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism representing
almost half of the question and presumably worthy of some attention?
Consideration of energy yields, Crabtree/Pasteur effects and the metabolic
by-products generated under anaerobic conditions are some examples of
suitable topics for discussion, the last being particularly important with
respect to flavour congeners. Although the 7 passes included some very
good answers, the average was brought down to 8.4/20 by the low marks of
the 6 failures.
Question 3
Describe, showing graphs of changes in the principal parameters, the
progress of a typical fermentation by distilling yeast. State which type of
fermentation you are describing: cereal wort for whisky, grape must for
brandy, or molasses wort for rum production (20)
Changes in yeast concentration, pH, amino-nitrogen and specific gravity/%
abv were expected in all answers together with temperature if that varied
over the course of fermentation, as in most whisky distilleries. Specifying
the fermentation time was also important because of the different time-
scale of the different types. Describe, showing graphs . . . indicated an
obligation to use both words and graphs to answer the question, and
many of the fail marks were due to reliance on graphs only, in some cases
even without calibration of the axes with units of process variables or
time. These deficiencies reflect the comment on differences between GCD
and Diploma in the preamble to this report. So, again there was only a
58% pass rate, and another disappointing average of the 26 answers, just
achieving the pass level 9.0/20.
Question 4
Explain the use of selective and non-selective culture media for
detection of microbial contaminants of culture yeast, and residual
microbial contamination of cleaned and sanitised fermentation
equipment. Give one example each of a suitable medium (10)
Give a brief account of the principle of the bioluminescence method for
detection of microbial contamination of a fermentation vessel and
discuss its advantages over traditional microbiology (10)
Most answers correctly named at least two culture media from the range
available for the specified laboratory situations (selective for detection or
isolation of other micro-organisms in the presence of culture yeast; non-
selective, any micro-organism grows, including culture yeast).
Unfortunately many were either vague or factually wrong in explanation of
the mode of action, e.g. lysine agar is selective for non-Saccharomyces
yeasts because only they can grow on lysine as sole source of nitrogen. The
second part requested only a brief account, but only a few lines on a
bioluminescence method in some answers was rather too brief for 10
marks. I expected, but saw only rarely, an explanation of
substrate/enzyme/ATP interaction and inactivation of background ATP in a
typical application. Everyone was aware that the main advantage of
bioluminescence is time, minutes instead of days. Fewer thought to add
that a single test can detect contamination by both bacteria and yeasts,
which may require at least two culture media for traditional isolation.
Although 11 of the 19 answers passed, the low marks of some brought the
average mark down to 8.4/20.
Question 5
With reference to both batch (pot) and continuous distillation of spirit
beverages, explain the significance of the volatility of flavour congeners
to their behaviour during distillation (20)
The intention here was to encourage discussion to compare the different
behaviour of congeners in the two types of distillation, but few answers
provided more than the standard textbook graphs and a minimum general
explanation of distillation. Almost everyone missed the point that the
congeners have consistent distillation kinetics; it is the different designs of
still and operating routines which create different flavour patterns
(however, marks were not affected by this omission). In continuous
distillation, congeners which are less volatile than ethanol do not reach the
rectifier column, and only those of similar volatility to ethanol and which
vary in relative volatility according to alcohol concentration are important
in the rectifier itself. In contrast, for batch, the entire range of volatiles
and volatilities appears in the system at some stage. Although everyone
mentioned congeners, the poorer-marked answers made no attempt to
organise the answer to suit the question. Also, some wrote mainly on pot
distillation, but a good answer required approximately equal attention to
both types. So only 15 of the 27 answers scored pass mark or above, and
the highest mark was only 13/20. It is disappointing that a question
specifically on distillation had only a 55% pass rate and an average mark in
the fail zone at 8.3/20.
Question 6
With the aid of a diagram, explain the operation of one type (state
which) of continuous still for spirit beverage production. A description of
start-up and close-down procedures is not required, but some comment
is expected on maintaining consistent spirit quality (14)
Describe one method for removal of higher alcohols from the still system
(6)
Since congeners and continuous distillation had already featured in
question 5, any repetition of the graphs here was a waste of time, paper
and ink.
The expected answer to the first part was a description of normal steady-
state operation, including control of feed (beer/wash and steam),
temperature and flow rate together with removal of spirit, cold feints and
fusel oil. Drawing a neat diagram would take up a substantial part of the
time allocation, and so it constituted a substantial part of the mark
(related to its neatness and accuracy). For part (b), a description of either a
decanter or fusel oil still accompanied by a sketch showing its relationship
to the main still system, would suffice. The 26 answers produced some
excellent marks, with a pass rate of 77% and an average mark 11.0/20.
Question 7
What are the physical and chemical properties of oak wood which make
it the preferred cask construction material for maturation of spirit
beverages? (8)
How can the effects of these properties be maximised in preparation of
the wood and construction of the casks? Include a chemical explanation
where appropriate (12)
As usual, maturation was a popular question, chosen by 27 candidates, and
once again suffered from candidates delivering a standard answer for use
irrespective of the question. In other words, many answers contained
large amounts of irrelevant material. The following are the points which
were acceptable this year. For part (a) the principal physical
characteristics are durability and strength, and that oak is non-porous
because tyloses develop in, and block, sap vessels, preventing leakage of
liquid. However, the wood remains permeable to vapour, which is
important for various maturation reactions, e.g. loss of unwanted high-
volatile congeners, and entry of atmospheric oxygen to allow oxidation
reactions. Certainly lignin and tannins had to be mentioned as important
chemical components contributing to flavour development, but a longer
list gained bonus marks. For part (b), it should have been obvious that
how can these effects be maximised? limited discussion to human
activity, so detailed discussion of maturation in general was irrelevant.
Physical could include sawing to avoid grain (and therefore leakage) across
the thickness of staves; and the absorptive effect of activated carbon of
charred wood. For Chemical, the most important effect is toasting or
charring of the inner surfaces of casks to create flavour compounds which
can be extracted into maturing spirit. Some of the better scripts also
mentioned the fungal phenolic metabolites which develop in wood during
traditional seasoning (but not artificial drying) of new wood. Many of the
answers, although competent general accounts of maturation, did not
address these specific aspects adequately. So, only 11 passes and a pass
rate of 41% with an average mark of only 7.9/20.
Question 8
Describe the procedures for one type of Difference Test and one type of
Descriptive Test for sensory assessment and quality control of potable
spirits (12)
Discuss briefly the relevance of these two types of test to sensory
assessment and quality control for gin, vodka, new-make pot-distilled
spirit, and mature pot-distilled spirit (8)
After a shockingly poor Q 7, the pass rate for question 8 was an excellent
92%. This was by far the best-answered question, with 23 passes from 25
answers, the highest individual marks of the module, and an average mark
12.4/20. Various tests could be chosen for the first part, and the 12 mark
allocation should have made it obvious that a detailed account of the
relevant procedures was expected. The number of participants needed for
statistical significance was also an important point to make, and some
discussion of statistical analysis was a welcome addition to many of the
better answers. The failed candidates, and the substantial number with
marginal pass marks, had low marks because of insufficient information.
What they did write indicated familiarity with sensory methods and it was
unfortunate they did not elaborate on their knowledge: another example
of inability to write an informative essay. For part (b), obviously a
descriptive test is impossible with normal vodka, but some discussion or
explanation was required over the choice of one or both types of test for
the other products. Indeed this was needed to determine whether or not
the stated choice was correct for the situation described.
Iain Campbell
Examiners Report 2013 27
DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2013
Module 3 Process Technology
Sixteen candidates sat this examination with an average mark was 56.3 %.
13 passed (2*A; 3*B; 4*C and 4*D) giving a pass rate of 81.3% which is
higher than last years 75% and aligned with the 83.3% in 2011.
The three fails comprised one each at E, F and G grades reflecting a broad
range of deficiency in knowledge requiring to be made up. There were also
5 no shows who hopefully will appear, suitably prepared, at a future date.
Whether as a result of reading the advice here last year (Read the
instructions and questions; Manage your time strictly; Show your
working; Draw legible diagrams) or not, it was pleasing to note some
progress.
This year all candidates attempted the correct number of questions and
the drawings were generally of a reasonable scale. However some
candidates ignored the requirement to note the numbers of questions
tackled on the cover page together with starting each question on a fresh
page.
Although a generalisation, there is the impression that simple questions
requiring mathematical working in the areas of heat transfer, viscosity,
pump pressures or combustion etc. are avoided or done reluctantly by a
significant proportion of candidates. It is strongly recommended - as part
of their exam preparations - that candidates overcome any inherent
reluctance and force themselves to complete as many worked examples as
they can.
Question 1
Discuss, with the help of relevant diagrams, the theory of distillation in a
binary ethanol : water mixture (10)
Explain how this theory influences the practical design and operation of a
distillation plant for a named spirit (10)
Only eight candidates attempted this question and all but two passed with
an average mark of 11.4. The Examiner was surprised that only half the
candidates attempted this question, as it is what our US candidates would
call Distillation Theory 101.
The first part of the question was an opportunity for candidates to display
their understanding of vapour pressure, vapour-liquid equilibriums,
McCabe Thiele graphs and the processes of both stripping and
rectification. The second part was an opportunity to discuss material of
construction, area, conductivity, reflux and cooling in respect of a chosen
apparatus.
Three good answers, three adequate passes and two fails mainly reflecting
differing levels of completeness but there were instances of back to front
vaporisation: condensation diagrams which lost marks.
Question 2
Describe, with the help of a simple diagram, a multi-column distillation
system for neutral spirit production, stating the role of the various
columns and ancillary equipment, specifying the plate design of one
named column. Show the major flows of feed, energy, distilled products
and other exit streams (12)
1000 kg/h-1 of ethanol condensate at 96% v/v (93.8% w/w) exits a
column at 78C and is cooled in a countercurrent heat exchanger to 20C.
The cooling water feeds the cooler at 10C and exits at 70C. Assuming
perfect insulation, how much water must be flowing through the cooler?
Specific heat of water = 4.2 kJ.kg-1 K-1
Specific heat of ethanol = 2.4 kJ.kg-1 K-1 (8)
Fourteen candidates attempted this question, and all but three passed.
The average score was the highest of any question, at 12.9. Half of those
who attempted this question gained good or very good marks.
The first part requested a diagram of a neutral spirit apparatus. A couple of
answers offered a Coffey apparatus which is not, on its own, acceptable.
Others omitted the request for a plate diagram. Some responses were
slightly suspect in terms of the order, number or function of various
28 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
columns although wide variations were allowed including those who
simplified the situation by starting with a spirit feed.
In the second part of the question a simple calculation on heat transfer
was necessary. Unfortunately half of the candidates failed to account for
the water component of the 96% v/v spirit. This is something of a rookie
error and accordingly somewhat concerning.
Question 3
Using a suitably labelled diagram of a pot spirit still, discuss the main
energy and heat transfer processes and how they impact on product
quality (12)
Assuming a surface area of 20 m2, emissivity 0.5 and an average
distillation temperature 95C, how much heat will a copper wash still
emit by convection and radiation over the duration of a 5 hour run?
Assume an ambient stillhouse temperature of 20C. (8)
Convective heat transfer coefficient from surface: 10 W.m-2 K-1
Stefan-Boltzmann constant: 5.67 x 10-8 W. m-2K-4
15 candidates attempted this question and 11 passed with an average
mark of 11.9.
Part one was again Distillation Theory 101 and was generally quite well
answered. However, given that the question was about a pot still and heat
transfer, it was unfortunate that several candidates did not think it
necessary to include a condenser within the scope of their answer. This
impacted on the product quality component of the answers, which could
have been more comprehensive e.g. by discussing coils versus shell and
tube arrangements.
Only four candidates got the answer to the second part entirely correct
with the others getting varying degrees of credit depending on the extent
of their workings. Failing to account for both components (convection and
radiation) and not using degrees Kelvin lost marks.
Question 4
Draw a diagram of a gas fired boiler to supply a high pressure process
steam main, showing and describing its main features for safe operation
(8)
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using mains gas as
compared to alternative energy sources (6)
Calculate the amount of air (assume 21% O2, 79% N2) required per hour
for complete combustion of 200 m3.h-1 of gas in such a boiler (assume
pure methane, fully combusted to carbon dioxide) under the
circumstances of 40% excess air. (6)
Density of air = 1.293 kg.m-3
Density of methane/natural gas = 0.717 kg.m-3
H=1, C=12, N=14, O=16.
14 candidates attempted this question with 10 passes, four fails and an
average mark of 10.1.
In the first part, candidates were invited to display their knowledge of a
package boiler with emphasis on safety features. Performance ranged
from full marks to zero reflecting the varying degree of knowledge of the
subject. Good answers included pressure gauges, Mobrey Hi Lo controls,
safety valve, Crown head valve, Blow down valve as well as a shell and
tubes.
Part (ii) was a comparison of gas with other fuels and was generally
satisfactorily. Discussion of storability, stability and energy density were all
valid considerations.
The final part of this question involved a simple combustion calculation.
As the question did not specify whether the answer should be in units of
mass or volume both were accepted. The given oxygen: nitrogen ratio of
21:79 is a volumetric ratio but several candidates interpreted it as w/w and
accordingly full credit was given where correctly calculated. Some
candidates failed either to convert an oxygen amount to air, or to add the
40% excess specified and thus lost marks.
Question 5
Stating three main factors which are used by regulators to assess
charges, discuss methods of processing distillery effluent on site to
minimise these charges and meet operational and regulatory
requirements (12)
Give an account of two methods for copper removal from effluent
streams (8)
Thirteen candidates attempted this question, eight passed and the average
mark was 10.1.
The first part of the question was an invitation to discuss aspects of the
Mogden formula (or similar) such as volume, suspended solids and COD.
Most went on to explain the operation of a bioplant but various aerobic
and/or anaerobic procedures were equally appropriate.
The second part sought two methods of copper removal. Most candidates
offered reed beds but struggled to describe a second such as ion exchange,
membranes or ultrafiltration. Answers such as plants or grass were
considered a little inadequate.
About half the candidates gained reasonable combined marks but many
answers were lacking detail e.g. reduction of suspended solids.
Question 6
Discuss, with suitably annotated diagrams, laminar and turbulent flow in
pipes and the importance of the Reynolds number. Give one example of
each in the operation of a named type of distillery (12)
Discuss the problem of pump cavitation and determine by calculation
whether the pump in the following example will cavitate or not.
A wash pot still, with open hatch/manhole and vents, at a pressure of
101kPa contains pot ale/spent wash at a density of 1020 kg.m -3. Its cast-
out/discharge pump is at the end of 20 m of pipe run and 3 m below the
base of the still. (8)
Pfrictional = 0.5 Pa.m-1, Gravity = 9.81 m.s-2
Eleven candidates attempted this question and all but two passed. The
average mark was 12.4.
The first part of the question required a discussion of laminar and
turbulent flow referencing diagrams and giving examples. Most made a
reasonable attempt at the pump cavitation question although only one
gained full marks. Correctly done, the calculation would prove that the
pressure at the pump would be more than sufficient to prevent cavitation.
In passing determine by calculation is not the same as taking a fifty-fifty
guess! The question prompted several good combined marks and one very
good mark.
Question7
(a) Explain the difference between austenitic and non-austenitic
stainless steels (3)
(b) Discuss two alloy grades of stainless steel and their features (4)
(c) Describe a situation where stainless steel would not be the correct
choice of steel to use and explain why that is the case (3)
Identify three process parameters, which require monitoring during the
production of spirit products and describe with simple diagrams the
workings of remote sensors, which could monitor these chosen
parameters (10)
12 candidates attempted this question, eight passed and the average mark
was 11.1.
Part (i) was a discussion of various aspects of stainless steel and its
properties, and also giving an example of a situation where stainless steel
was not the appropriate steel to use. A good answer would include the
prevalence of use of austenitic stainless steels in the distilling industry and
its inclusion of trace metals such as chromium, nickel and molybdenum.
Comparison should have been made with, say, ferritic stainless steels.
An example where stainless steel would be inappropriate could be a
package boiler, where the cheapness, workability, weldability, good tensile
strength and ductility would favour carbon steels.
Note that the question requested another choice of steel so copper was
not an acceptable answer!
The second part of this question asked for three process parameters,
which could require monitoring. These could be temperature, pressure,
density, level or flow. The requirement to describe remote sensors for
these parameters was delivered to a rather variable standard. A huge
range of techniques would have been acceptable, from thermocouples to
radar!
This two part question was generally reasonably answered, but there was
one outstanding answer which gained full marks, the only such instance in
the entire examination.
Question 8
Explain the difference between floc and haze in a potable spirit product
and discuss the opportunities for their control, prevention and removal
at different production steps prior to bottle filling (8)
Referencing a flow diagram of a spirits bottling line which shows
sequentially the main equipment required, discuss how you would
monitor and control the operational efficiency of this line (12)
This question was answered by nine candidates with five passing and an
overall average score of 10.7.
For part (i) the difference between haze and floc should have flagged that
haze forming at low temperatures, is a reversible condition deriving from
both distillation congeners, such as long chain fatty acids and wood
extractives. Floc is ionic in origin and irreversible due to the formation of
calcium and magnesium oxalate. Haze prevention would include control of
still running conditions whereas the use of deionised water would reduce
floc formation. Chill filtration, where the spirit is reduced to 0-4C and
passed through roughing and polishing sheets was the obvious removal
process.
In the second part of the question, the flow diagrams were presented
adequately showing the sequence of the various steps in the bottling line
process. Discussion was expected on the V graph, machine available time,
stoppages, machine run time, accumulation tables and the calculation of
machine efficiency.
Alan Wolstenholme
Examiners Report 2013 29
 DIPLOMA IN PACKAGING EXAMINATION 2013

Examiners - Ruth Bromley, Roland Folz, Gavin Duffy, Robin Cooper, Zane Barnes,
Angus Steven, Dick Charlton and Thomas Shellhammer

Module 1:
Unit 1 Packaging Theory and Materials

Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
impact of the loss of different packaging materials on their production line.
For a packaging line of your choice, carry out a study of the material
losses on the line and explain how these are calculated and tracked (7)
Select the material which has the highest loss, then investigate and
explain the main causes for this (8)
Evaluate the impact this is having on your production site, both in terms
of reduced performance and associated issues (e.g. cost, re-work, output
etc.) and propose ways to reduce this loss (10)
35 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
13, with the range of scores from 6 to 20.
As the first assignment for these candidates, a number of submissions
were lacking the detail expected within the submission. The purpose of
the assignments is to allow the candidates to investigate real topics on
their own production line and potentially help find solutions and savings
for their company.
A well-structured submission generally included a brief overview of the
packaging line selected, sometimes including flow or layout diagrams to
help explain the line. The candidates who had spent their time on the line
study were then able to provide good descriptions of the potential areas of
materials loss, and also accompanied their descriptions with both how the
losses were measured (frequency, volume, value) and either diagrams or
photographs of the areas concerned.
Candidates were then asked to select the material with the highest loss
and this could be described either in terms of value, volume, and
production efficiency loss or personnel impact. Better explanations
included pareto analysis of the losses and details of the investigations into
each area including some classifications of the issues and how these had
been undertaken.
The final part of the question received mixed responses. Most candidates
managed to explain what they would do to try and reduce the losses, with
the better submissions also including their action plans as an
appendix. However the majority of candidates did not then translate
these impacts into financial or numeric form which meant that it was
virtually impossible to determine whether the right prioritization had been
applied or not.
Short Answer Questions
32 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 21, with the
scores ranging from 3 to 32.
In general the knowledge demonstrated by candidates was disappointing,
with the average just above half marks. Questions on the can making
process and the use of different print types were very poorly
answered. Answers to the questions on keg manufacture and PET bottle
production were also variable in their standard, suggesting that a number
of candidates had only focused on the materials used in their process,
rather than all of those detailed within the syllabus. Further some
candidates failed to read the question, and gave incorrect answers e.g.
answering a question about materials used in crown manufacture, rather
than the one asked about materials used in crown liners.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
With the aid of a flow diagram describe the key steps in the
manufacturing process of a narrow neck press and blow bottle (15)
Compare and contrast this with an alternative method of bottle
manufacturing and explain the advantages and disadvantages of the two
processes (10)
List the key steps for the manufacturing process described in part (1)
where quality issues can arise. For each issue listed explain the potential
consequences and what should be done to either mitigate or prevent
these from causing issues on the bottle filling line (10)
15 candidates answered this question, with marks ranging from one to 24,
with an average score of 14.
The standard of the diagrams provided for this question was mixed, with
some candidates following the question and using a flow diagram, and
others trying to reproduce diagrams of bottle manufacture. By asking for a
flow diagram, the Examiner was looking candidates to highlight the key
steps in the process, together with a description. In general, most of the
descriptions provided were poor, with only the better candidates covering
gob formation and hot end treatment along with the main steps in the
bottle manufacturing process.
The second section was the best answered, although again the
comparisons were of mixed quality. Here the Examiner was looking for
alternate bottle production methods therefore those candidates who
talked about the production of jars or vases did not score well. The narrow
neck press and blow process is generally used for high precision and high
volume production and can produce a consistent thickness of glass which
allows for lightweighting of the bottle however it is a high cost
process. Better answers compared this with the older blow and blow
process, and very good answers included diagrams of both processes to
help support their comparisons.
A number of candidates either ran out of time for the final part of the
question, or had not studied the bottle manufacturing process, and as a
result this section was poorly answered. The expectation was for
candidates to use the steps detailed in the first part of the answer and
explain where the manufacturing issues could occur. Better answers
included surface treatment, annealing, hot and cold end treatments, bottle
inspection (and the various types of faults) and even potential sampling
regimes.
Question 2
Describe the technical and marketing functions of packaging materials
(10)
Using a standard 2 piece can as the sample material, give examples of
both the technical and marketing functions (10)
With the use of a flow diagram describe the key steps in the
manufacturing process of a can end with a retained tab (15)
16 candidates answered this question, with marks ranging between seven
and 24, and an average score of 13.
The first part of this question was looking for a description of each of the
technical and marketing functions of packaging materials. A number of
candidates chose to simply list topics under each heading and as a result
their score was lower. This should not have been a difficult question as
the topic is covered extensively in the learning material.
Having explained what the technical and marketing functions were, the
second part of the question required the candidate to apply these to a
standard two-piece can and to illustrate each function. A couple of
examples of this would have been:-

30 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 Technical function containment. A description of how the can
end is seamed onto the can to hold the contents under pressure
until opened, with no ingress or egress of product or other
materials.
Marketing function - communication and selling. A description of
how different print options and use of colours and branding can
help make the product stand out on shelf and therefore be
attractive to the customer.
The final part of this question was very poorly answered with five
candidates offering no answer, four candidates describing can
manufacture not can end with retained tab manufacture and only seven
candidates attempting to provide an answer. Overall answers were poor,
suggesting that this had not been an area of focus for candidates. Again by
asking for a flow diagram, the Examiner was expecting key points of the
manufacturing process to be identified, with a brief description of each
stage alongside each step. This should have allowed candidates who had
studied this to share their knowledge without having to write a detailed
description of the process.
Ruth Bromley
Module 1:
Unit 2 - Beer Preparation
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidates had a good
understanding of the processes used post maturation/pre-packaging which
can influence the quality of beer produced.
Describe the processes in use at your own site, or your beer supply site,
which could positively influence the following areas:
Microbiological stability (8)
Chemical and physical stability (8)
Explain the reasons for these processes being used, and compare these
methods with another option to highlight what improvements might be
possible (9)
35 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
12, with the range of scores from three to 21.
The candidates presented a reasonable overview of the brewing processes
from post maturation stage to pre-packaging, as well as a good
demonstration of line investigation. However, several assignments lacked
detail on the impact of the process on microbiological, chemical and
physical stability.
Good submissions were well structured and made good use of graphs and
flow diagrams. Useful measures to assure microbiological stability included
optimizing hygienic design, efficient CIP procedures, sampling and testing,
implementation of HACCP, sterile filtration and pasteurization processes.
Better candidates also described the impact on chemical and physical
stability of colloidal stability, influence of oxygen intake, filtration and
stabilization. Weaker candidates focussed excessively on CIP (with regard
to microbiological stability) and filtration for improving chemical and
physical stability.
The majority of the candidates struggled with final part of the question
particularly with regard to identifying improvements.
Short Answer Questions
32 candidates sat the examination with an average score of 22, with a
range of marks from zero (!) to 34.
In general, the better performances concerned brewing topics. That said
the questions where candidates performed poorly included flavour
stability, stabilization agents (and mode of action) and pasteurization (e.g.
key factors/parameters and comparative benefits of flash and tunnel
pasteurization). Additionally, candidates struggled to identify two types of
microorganism which are targeted by flash pasteurization.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Name different factors in the scope of brewhouse work until bright beer
tank that are influencing the final oxygen level of beer (15)
How can one influence the final oxygen level by variation of process
parameters? (20)
14 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
eight and 30, with an average score of 17.
For the first part of this question, the Examiner was expecting a list of
different factors, which can influence the uptake, and final level of oxygen
in beer. Answers should have included possible oxidation influences in the
brewhouse and the role of filtration in controlling dissolved oxygen.
In the second part, the candidates were required to explain how process
parameters influence the final oxygen level in beer. The answers were
expected to provide measures for improvement in order to avoid/reduce
oxygen pick-up. Good responses flagged some of the options to eliminate
oxygen in vessels and pipes such as flushing (dearated liquor, carbon
dioxide) together the importance of good design. The contribution of
filtration to managing dissolved oxygen was also expected notably
avoiding any pick up from filter aid and the use of dearated liquor in
purging and dilution. Finally a good answer would touch on the benefits of
in-line monitoring to measure and control dissolved oxygen
Question 2
Which are the three types of kieselguhr filters used nowadays typically?
Name two advantages for each filter (20)
Name five advantages being discussed in changing processing to a
kieselguhr free filtration. (15)
17 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
0 and 35, with an average score of 26.
This question required candidates to name the three types of kieselguhr
filters currently used and point out two of their advantages. Good answers
would be expected to cover the below.
Plate and frame filter:
Being robust and reliable.
Consistently filters beer to the specified standard.
Easy to operate and it can serve as a polishing filter.
Sheets are washable and can be used for longer periods of
time.
Lower maintenance costs (no moving parts).
Horizontal Leaf Filter:
Provides the possibility of using beers directly at the end of
filtration.
The horizontal design provides more flexibility and a stable
filter cake.
Offers high capacity and high mechanical and chemical stability.
Vessel can be emptied with CO2 without changing the filter cake
making it possible to filter at the beginning and the end of a
charge with a low water-beer blend.
Easy discharge of filter aid.
Candle filter:
Offers high filtrate quality.
Due to the large filtration surface, high through flow can be
achieved.
Due to longer filter life cycles, operating costs can be reduced.
The construction design avoids O2 intake.
Easy to be automated.
The cleaning process is easy and efficient.
Lower maintenance costs (no moving parts).
In the second part of question 2, answers five advantages of operating a
kieselguhr free filtration process. The main benefits of this kind of filtration
are listed below:
Environment - by the reduction of kieselguhr extraction from
nature and by eliminating the disposal process.
Health and safety if the powder is inhaled, calcinated
kieselguhr can cause silicosis, which was classified as
carcinogenic.
Examiners Report 2013 31
 Reduction of costs for kieselguhr and its disposal. Handling and
equipment costs for storage should also have been taken into
consideration.
Elimination of the threat of kieselguhr contamination of beer,
which can cause turbidity and off- flavours.
Time and labour (especially during cleaning procedures) could
also be saved when performing a kieselguhr-free filtration.
Roland Folz
Module 1:
Unit 3 Planning and Line Design
Assignment
This assignment is designed to evaluate and assess poor packaging line
performance and the related recommendations to improve performance.
For a packaging line of your choice, describe the approach that you
would take to identify the cause of poor operational performance on this
line (5)
Explain how you would determine and quantify the key deviations and
gaps in meeting the key performance standards. You are encouraged to
include diagrams, checks, analysis examples and tools that you would
use in your evaluation as part of the submission (5)
Outline the recommendations you would make to improve performance
in the key areas of:-
line design integrity
downtime verification
waste (10)
34 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
13, with the range of scores from eight to 22.
For the first part of the assignment, candidates were expected to describe
the procedures, measures, tools and techniques that they would use to
identify the cause of poor performance on the line. The candidates were
expected to identify key areas of performance, KPI's and related standards
and benchmarks for focus.
In the second part, a more detailed analysis of those key areas identified
above was expected, with appropriate details, examples, charts and
diagrams and a supporting explanation of the identified deviations to
target/standard.
The final part required recommendations to improve performance in the
three key areas of line design integrity, downtime verification, and waste
respectively. Responses were expected to include specific references to
KPI's, trends, problem solving/root cause analysis and key corrective action
recommendations with supporting post recommendation
expectations/results/business benefits.
Candidates with higher scores provided comprehensive coverage of the
key expectations by section and included corrective action
recommendations and related business benefits, whereas the poorer
responses were more of a theoretical response with little to no
substantiation.
Short Answer Questions
32 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average score of 22, with the
scores ranging from six to 38.
The candidates breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter was
tested here. Weaker areas/responses were prevalent in questions on
planning and forecasting, materials of construction and corrosion.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
A well designed returnable glass packaging line is required to gain certain
benefits. Briefly describe what key design aspects you would consider to
achieve these benefits in the respective areas of:
32 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
Soft container handling
Reduced waste and breakage
Low noise levels and staff safety
Extended container trip life
Improved line efficiency and productivity (35)
16 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging from four
to 22, with an average score of 14.
The emphasis of the question was focussed on a description and examples
of key design aspects in the nominated areas. Factors, which should have
been considered, included the following:
Soft container handling - container design, container
protection, container handling (including both on and off-line -
transport, secondary and tertiary packing), and line and
equipment design considerations/aspects for soft container
handling.
Reduced waste and breakage - key waste forms, typical
measures and targets, key container, equipment and line design
factors and criteria (thermal shock, container speed/impact
criteria).
Low noise levels and staff safety typical targets and
parameters, analysis and evaluation, measures and focus areas,
protection and prevention, safety procedures, lockout systems,
training.
Extended container trip life - container design, container
protection - glass coatings, inspection, returnable container
population management, palletisation, storage, transportation,
quality measures.
Improved efficiency and productivity - speed losses, defect
losses, waste reduction, manning, training and skilling,
organisational design, KPIs/targets and measures, tracking and
key problem solving processes including line design reviews and
performance evaluation, and plant maintenance
considerations.
In general the bulk of the responses listed a few factors by area with little
substantiation, qualification or reasoning.
Question 2
With the aid of sketches/schematic diagrams explain the key differences
between static and dynamic accumulation, and the respective
advantages and disadvantages of each (15)
With the aid of schematic diagrams distinguish the key differences
between straight line and u-shaped layouts, and cover the respective
advantages and disadvantages by layout type (20)
16 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
zero and 24 with an average score of 15.
The question on accumulation was aimed at establishing the candidates
understanding of the key differences in static and dynamic accumulation
and how these are used and applied on modern packaging lines.
Responses were generally disappointing, suggesting a more in-depth
exposure to conveyor design/accumulation principles and application is
warranted. Examples of what the expected response include:
Detailed sketches explaining the key differences by accumulation type,
including methods of control and reasons for these; design standards in
terms of typical accumulation parameters and how these are quantified
with knowledge of typical failure patterns and frequencies by and between
machines and machine types, and overall line profiles and ratings.
Most candidates provided unsubstantiated advantages and disadvantages
between accumulation type, with the better responses providing more
detailed substantiation/reasoning for these factors.
The section on layout sought to establish the candidates understanding of
packaging line layouts by type, the key design and operational differences
and how these layouts are applied in practice.
A good answer would have included schematic diagrams, distinguishing
the key differences between types, together with supporting explanation
of what these differences are.
Most candidates provided schematic sketches with little supporting
commentary. Advantages and disadvantages were generally listed with
very brief/little substantiation. The better students provided more detailed
commentary on both schematic diagrams and reasoning for the
advantages and disadvantages respectively. This commentary included
discussion on the impact of single vs. multiple brand pack requirements;
productivity and staff skills/training aspects, ergonomics, capital cost, and
logistics/warehousing implications.
Gavin Duffy
Module 1:
Unit 4 Small Pack Operations
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to show that they
understand the operation of a small pack palletizer and how the
functionality of the palletizer allows for optimal loading and storage of
pallets.
For a small pack palletizer of your choice, describe in detail the operation
of the palletizer. All aspects of the operation should be included with
particular emphasis on how the palletizer works. Your submission
should also include palletizer flexibility, change-overs, pack quality
integrity and safety.
Explain how the functionality of the palletizer and its set up meet the
challenges of transporting pallets and allow for storage optimisation.
Compare the capability and limitations of the palletizer with the demand
for different pack formats. Your submission should also consider pallet
stability, pallet formats, stacking patterns and the impact on storage
utilization.
33 candidates submitted this assignment with scores ranging from 24 to
80% and an average of 56%.
9 candidates did not pass this assignment as their submission lacked the
basics of a good assignment report. Here, there was little or no structure
to the report and some of the basic elements of easy to read, structure,
references and the correct number of words was not adhered to. Further
weaker reports had no detailed description of how the palletiser in their
brewery operates. This was disappointing as the assignment requires the
candidate to visit the palletiser and understand how it operates.
The satisfactory submissions demonstrated knowledge of how the
palletiser works and also started to describe in greater detail its
functionality relating this to flexibility, stacking patterns, layer formation,
materials used in palletisation and pallet quality. Safety at the palletiser is
the most important consideration and the better candidates explored this
outlining safety measures in place.
The second part of the question was generally not well answered. Those
good submissions highlighted pallet stability, stacking patterns (diagrams
or sketches would help here), the use of stretchwrap, lock and pop
adhesive and started to explain the purpose of good palletisation in
maintaining pack integrity through the transportation process. Some
aspects, which were rarely, mentioned (but should have been) included
maintenance, change-overs, effects of transportation and how warehouse
utilisation is affected by different pallet formations. Ironically, all the areas
which needed to be covered were highlighted in the question so
development coupled with real experience would have produced a
satisfactory report.
Short Answer
The marks ranged from 16 to 37 marks (out of 40) with a mark of 28.
There were no particular weak areas and most candidates demonstrated a
good range of knowledge from bottle washing to can filling and seaming.
Long answer
Question 1
Explain the operation of a can seamer using a sketch or flow diagram (10)
Draw a labelled section diagram of a double seam showing important
dimensions and standard descriptors (15)
List common seaming problems and reasons for these problems (10)
14 candidates answered this question with an average score of 18
marks out of 35. The range was six to 29 marks with 10 candidates passing
the question.
The first part of the question was not well answered as only a few
candidates actually answered the question which was about sketching or
drawing the operation of a can seamer. This should have been a fairly
straightforward task of showing can and end infeed and showing how the
two come together. The second part of the question was answered much
better with some good diagrams of a double seam highlighting the key
dimensions of seam thickness, body hook length, overlap etc.
More detail was required from the third part of the question. Although
most candidates demonstrated some knowledge of common seaming
issues they did not always explain how these issues arose.
Question 2
Describe the different types of secondary packaging which may be used
for packaging glass bottles or cans (15)
Choose a board based secondary packaging machine and using a flow
diagram describe the principal features of the packaging operation
highlighting how the packer works and the critical areas which contribute
to a robust pack (20)
18 candidates answered this question with an average score of 16 out of
35 marks. The range was from three to 33 marks with only 9 out of the 18
candidates passing the question.
The main problem with many of the answers was the lack of depth of
knowledge. The first part of the question should include all the types of
secondary packaging e.g. trays, cartons, baskets, collated film etc. This is
an extensive field and one of the most important aspects of selling beer in
many markets. The best answer described all these packaging types and
also went on to explain the reasons for using a particular pack type relating
to cost, ease of packing, transport implications, geographical demands and
consumer needs. There was also an understanding of materials used in
these secondary pack types.
The second part of the question had a whole range of answers from some
very good sketches of a packer operation to a few general points. To
answer this question in a structured way required the candidate to draw a
flow diagram of the packer operation, highlight all the principle features of
that operation, describe how the packer actually works and highlight with
reasons all the critical areas which affect the robustness of the pack.
Angus Steven
Module 2:
Unit 1 Quality
Assignment
This assignment was designed to demonstrate an understanding of how
operational quality is monitored and managed on a packaging line.
On a packaging line of your choice identify ten key packaging analytical
and on line measures that are used to verify and ensure packaged
product and pack integrity. Provide a brief explanation of the
methodology, frequency and reasoning for each of these measures (10)
Identify a key process area on the packaging line that is not consistently
achieving the required quality standard and, with the aid of the
analytical and on line measures used above, determine and explain what
actions you would take to improve quality in this key area with
supporting justification (15)
You are encouraged to provide measurement and analysis details, trends
and charts and process evaluation methods used to support your findings
and recommendations.
Examiners Report 2013 33
35 Candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
14, with the range of scores from seven to 22.
For the first part of the assignment, candidates were expected to
demonstrate an understanding of the key packaging analytical and on line
measurements used on a nominated packline. In addition the Examiner
was looking for supporting detail and commentary on typical standards,
methodology, purpose and the technology used in analysis and
measurement.
In the second part, the candidates were required to identify a key process
area that was achieving not achieving the required standard of quality and
then demonstrate understanding of the use of tools and techniques in
identifying the cause through analysis/problem solving together with
recommendations for corrective action.
The better scores included details of measurement and analysis, typical
standards/parameters, trends, and charts with recommendations for
methods of process evaluation, problem solving and corrective action.
Short Answer Questions
33 Candidates sat the examination, and achieved an average mark of 28,
with the scores ranging from 21 to 36.
The candidates breadth of knowledge of the unit subject matter was
tested and was covered well by most of the candidates with mixed
responses on quality audit processes.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Describe the concept of Total Quality Management and identify and
discuss the key principles applied (15)
Explain how you would incorporate these principles in application on a
key packaging process for a returnable bottle filling line (15)
Differentiate the principles of a quality control approach versus a quality
assurance approach (5)
25 Candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
nine and 24 with an average of 17.
In the first two parts of the question the candidate was expected to
demonstrate understanding of the concept of total quality management
and the principles applied, and how these principles are incorporated into
a key returnable packing process application.
The higher scoring candidates covered the theoretical content and
provided substantiated application examples on the nominated process;
with good reasoning and supporting commentary for applying these in
terms of methodology, typical parameters and focus areas. This included
reference to management involvement and leadership, employee
investment, problem solving and statistical methods, customer/supplier
relationships, problem prevention, ownership/accountability - with specific
examples of application.
In the third part of the question the candidates were asked to
demonstrate their understanding on principles of a quality control versus a
quality assurance approach respectively.
The higher scoring candidates covered this comprehensively with
supporting commentary and emphasised the basis of setting specifications,
key measures for these, monitoring and taking corrective action on out of
specification production process; versus the systemic aspects of focussing
on repeatability and batch to batch conformance for - quality control and
quality assurance respectively.
The poorer scoring candidates submissions listed a theoretical set of
points/content with very little to no substantiation.
Question 2
Describe the eight key elements you would consider when introducing a
good Manufacturing Practice assessment (GMP) on your packaging line
(25)
Provide specific examples of five CCPs (Critical Control Points) that have
been identified in packaging using the above approach (10)
Eight candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging
34 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
between 9 and 17, with an average of 13.
The responses were disappointing in comparison with the above question.
Most candidates covered the theory but with little supporting commentary
and examples of practical application (e.g. raw materials, transportation,
product/package information/consumer awareness, pack plant
design/facilities, staff training and personal hygiene).
In the second of the question the candidates were expected to provide
specific examples of five CCP's that have been identified in packaging using
the GMP approach from part A. Generally these were listed with little or
no supporting commentary to substantiate or quantify the reasons for
these, and the measures, controls and/or technology used.
For example, a high number of candidates proposed bottle burst
monitoring at filling as one of the CCP's nominated with little to no
commentary on: why/reasoning, methods of and frequencies of
monitoring, control and management of burst/broken glass, spray
systems/technologies to flush and clean filling valves adjacent to/either
side the particular valve, or related filled container reject processes and
requirements post filler [after an incident]. In addition very little or no
commentary was provided on root cause/problem solving processes to
establish the cause of burst containers.
Gavin Duffy
Module 2:
Unit 2 Operations Management
Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood how
plant maintenance is organized and planned.
For a packaging line of your choice, explain how plant maintenance is
organized and planned making clear the necessary differences between
preventive or predictive activities and breakdown maintenance. Your
submission should include (but not be limited to):
maintenance planning meetings
routine maintenance tasks and skills to carry them out
specialist tasks and skills
how non-routine short and extended plant shut-downs are
organized
brief descriptions of supporting systems
safety implications (15)
Critically assess and discuss the effectiveness of plant maintenance in
maximizing line performance and make specific recommendations for
improvement (10)
35 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
16, with the range of scores from 6 to 22.
The assignment produced some very good submissions with three
excellent efforts. Too many scripts though were high on word count but
pleasingly several candidates made effective use of appendices (including
photographs and screen-dumps) without incurring the word count penalty.
The best submissions ensured that all sections of the task were well
addressed with an excellent explanation of the organization and planning
of maintenance including the planning meetings (who attends, timing,
prioritisation of tasks, meeting notes), execution (examples of tasks and
skills employed), supporting systems (capturing plant history, tracking
costs, reordering spares) as well as why short mini overhauls are
increasingly preferred. Safety was generally well covered with brief
explanations of risk assessments, permits to work, safe working practices,
lock out procedures and use of PPE.
The analysis of the effectiveness of maintenance was patchier with poorer
submissions lacking objectivity. The Examiner had hoped for specific KPIs
in making any assessment (e.g. OEE, maintenance cost/hl, PM clearance
rates, meantime between failures, mean time between repairs etc.). Few
candidates made reference to benchmarking with competitors or even
with other industries.
Most submissions included a well-targeted list of recommendations. Many
would have benefited from a cost/benefit analysis to justify extra
discretionary expenditure on training and spares (especially the candidate
who recommended stocking all OEM recommended spares!) One
candidate was highly critical of safety indiscipline earlier in his/her
submission but disappointingly did not make any recommendations for
improvement.
Short Answer Questions
33 candidates sat the examination with an average score of 27 marks and a
range from 14 to an excellent 38.
Several candidates failed to provide any sort of answer to a number of the
short answer questions. It follows that they immediately penalize
themselves and reduce their potential score. Surely some sort of attempt
or even an educated guess is a better option?
Of the four elements in Unit 2.2, questions on line operations and World
Class manufacturing were generally answered more strongly than those on
finance and procurement. In finance, the understanding of the different
types of cost (here examples of direct and fixed) was often poor and more
careful study is recommended for future candidates. Whilst procurement
may not feature in candidates everyday experience, the Revision Notes
cover the subject comprehensively.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Explain six key factors which influence the overall performance of a
packaging line (24)
For two of these factors, describe how each may be optimized (11)
All 33 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging
between 8 and 26 and an average of 17.
The failure of candidates to manage their time adequately in the
examination continues to be an issue. A number of candidates had clearly
not allowed enough time for the long answer question. In addition, several
candidates had not divided their time appropriately between the two parts
of the question, which were proportional to the marks!
In asking the candidates to Explain six key factors.. a simple list will not
satisfy the Examiner. Two or three sentences for each factor would be
expected as a minimum. After all, this section represents two thirds of the
available marks.
The examiner had anticipated candidates basing their answers on the key
factors laid out in the Revision Notes. These are materials, planning and
plant performance. The latter then being broken down into inherent
reliability, maintenance and the skills and motivation of operators and
technicians. The better answers reproduced the diagram in the Notes
showing the dependencies of these factors and then going on to briefly
explain each in turn.
A significant number of candidates chose an alternative approach
effectively providing measures of performance rather than influences on
performance although each should lead to management action to improve
performance. They were based mainly on the 6 big losses used in OEE
calculations (equipment failure, changeover and set-up, idling and minor
stops, reduced speed, defects in process and reduced yield/start-up).
Whilst not the examiners preferred approach the scripts were marked
sympathetically.
The second part of the question was not well addressed. Again the Notes
provided prompts to enable candidates to describe how two key factors
can be optimized. Several candidates clearly drew on their own
experiences to cite excellent relevant examples.
In considering overall packaging line performance, only the very best
candidates managed to work into their answers a full range of relevant
KPIs which might have included yield, quality, waste/losses, operating
costs, achievement of plan and service Levels.
Question 2
Explain the principal stages in the purchasing cycle (20)
Compare and contrast procedures and practices for traditional and e-
commerce purchasing operations (15)
No candidate chose to answer this question it is likely to reappear in a
future examination!
Robin Cooper
Module 2:
Unit 3 Large Pack Operations Keg
Assignment
This assignment was designed to allow the candidate to show their
understanding of keg filling and how keg contents are controlled through
the filling process.
For a keg filler of your choice, explain the theory and practice of keg
filling. This should include details of keg preparation stages prior to filling
to ensure beer quality is maintained. The assignment must show detail of
cycle times, filler settings and the factors which may affect beer quality
(10)
Assess and discuss how keg contents are controlled by the filling process
showing all factors which may affect this control. Show your
understanding of Contents Legislation in your region and how this is
adhered to in practice (10)
Describe how keg contents can be optimized to ensure minimal beer loss
while still conforming to Contents Legislation (5)
35 candidates submitted this assignment with a range of scores from 24%
to 76% and an average of 52%.
12 candidates did not pass this assignment as their submission lacked the
basics of a good assignment report. There was little or no structure to the
report and some of the basic requirements of clarity and the use of
illustrative diagrams were absent. Although nearly all reports explained
the theory of keg washing and filling, the better reports actually
highlighted that the candidate had spent time at the keg filler and
understood the parameters particularly relevant to their machine. It is not
sufficient to copy out operating parameters and diagrams from the keg
filler operating manual.
The satisfactory submissions demonstrated knowledge of how the keg
filler operates and more importantly how the key parameters (time,
temperature, caustic/acid strength, latent heat of steam) affected the
cleaning cycle and therefore the impact on beer quality. An explanation of
the physical preparation of the keg e.g. external keg washing and torque
checking as well as the importance of sterilisation was also required.
Answers to the second part of the paper ranged from very detailed
explanations of the filling process using sophisticated techniques like DFC
to very basic explanations, which failed to demonstrate that the candidate
understood the process. The question also asked for a simple explanation
of the contents legislation in the candidates country. Regrettably some
candidates ignored this request, which is an essential piece of knowledge
for those working in packaging. The third part of the question was not well
answered with very little detail on how to optimise the contents in a keg. It
is not satisfactory to say this is done by the machine. The better reports
listed actual results and how this was measured. All candidates should
look at this area and highlight how contents control could be improved
Short Answer
This unit had the weakest candidate scoring 13 marks and the best scoring
35 marks out of 40 with an average score was 26 marks. There were no
themes to questions which were poorly answered and most candidates
demonstrated a good range of knowledge of line capacity to operating
conditions on a keg line.
Long answer
Question 1
List the key design and operational features of keg dispense equipment
from keg spears (extractors) to dispense taps and how each type of
equipment may impact on dispense yield (10)
Examiners Report 2013 35
Describe how the quality of dispense may be affected by each of the
following key parameters.
Hygiene
Gas pressure
Temperature (25)
Nine candidates answered this question with an average score of 17 out of
35 marks. The range was eight to 24 marks with four candidates passing
the question.
The first part of the question was not really well answered as candidates
tended to just list different equipment which was used in the dispense of
beer. The answer should have listed equipment which affected dispense
such as spear (extractor) type, different dispense heads, devices for
priming lines, different types of beer pumps and different dispense taps
and importantly how each of these pieces of equipment affected dispense
yield. Candidates focussed too much on temperature and gas pressure
which formed the second part of the question.
The second part of the question was answered better with most
candidates being able to describe how hygiene, gas pressure and
temperature affected the quality of dispense. However most of the
answers were theoretical and gave general descriptions rather than the
better answers which described the types of infection from poor hygiene
and the impact on flavour and beer clarity. The better answers also
contained information on actual temperatures of dispense and actual gas
pressures and gas types used in dispense.
Question 2
Draw a flow diagram of the operation of either a lane or rotary filling
machine showing each stage of the process from empty keg infeed to full
keg discharge (10)
Describe what happens at each stage of the process identified in the flow
diagram above, including all relevant process parameters (25)
24 candidates answered this question with an average score of 12 marks
out of 35. The range was three marks to 30 with only 7 out of the 24
candidates passing the question.
The question was obviously not well answered by the majority of the
candidates. The question was asking candidates to draw a diagram of the
operation of a keg filling machine to show each stage from presentation of
the empty keg to the filler to the full keg leaving the filler. Many
candidates drew a diagram of the whole line and therefore did not focus
enough on the keg filler. As most candidates would have worked on this
area as part of their assignment it was expected that there would be much
more detail on the washing, sterilisation and filling process for a keg. This
meant that the second part of the question was therefore not well
answered either. The better answers went into detail on the operation at
each head and described the process parameters used and the relevance
to the filling operation.
Angus Steven
Module 2:
Unit 5 Brewing
Assignment
This assignment is designed to a candidates understanding of wort boiling
and its process management.
Using diagrams (and photographs if appropriate) describe the wort
boiling operation in your brewery (7)
List the physical and chemical changes that are occurring during wort
boiling and explain how each one of these is controlled or regulated by
your plant (8)
Provide two justified recommendations to improve either wort quality or
the operational efficiency of your wort boiling operation (10)
16 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average score of
15, with the range of marks from three to 20.
36 Institute of Brewing and Distilling
The assignment was designed so that it was necessary to understand and
describe the candidates wort boiling operation and then make justified
recommendations for improvement.
In the first section many presented generalised textbook diagrams and
even where local SCADA screen dumps were provided there was no
appropriate labelling or process description to demonstrate understanding
of the process. Where electronic diagrams are not available it is acceptable
to provide a scanned hand drawn process flow diagram. The actual control
of steam and condensate removal lacked detail and was generally not well
understood. Only one candidate identified the need to capture and
remove reflux condensate within the vapour stack.
The best papers were those that clearly described how the boil worked,
particularly the interaction between the wort heater and the vessel, and
that also described all the operational activities (filling, raise to boil, boil,
additions, inspection and sampling, cast/rinse, CIP, cycle time).
A few candidates alluded to hot break but offered no explanation of the
mechanisms involved or how it was assessed (e.g. Imhof cone). No
mention was made of cold break. This is a vital assessment of boil
effectiveness and measure of any impact downstream on fermentation
and beer filtration and shelf life.
The second section was better covered for the process changes occurring
during boil. Highest marks were given for identifying how these changes
could be manipulated and controlled at the candidates brewery.
The third section requested two justified recommendations for
improvement and represented 40% of the available marks). All suggestions
were valid but, apart from a few notable exceptions, technical feasibility
and cost/benefit analysis to justify the recommendation were not well
covered.
Generally data sources/references were poorly acknowledged
Short Answer Questions
14 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average mark of 26, with the
scores ranging from 18 to 36.
The main misconceptions and areas that exhibited a lack of knowledge
were;
1) Breakdown products of protein at mashing
2) The predominant sugar of an all malt wort
3) The mash temperature to achieve most fermentable wort
4) The component of trub which is otherwise detrimental to
beer quality in addition to polyphenol/tannin
5) The other process technique to accelerate yeast
sedimentation in addition to adding finings
6) The other process parameter during maturation critical to
colloidal and flavour stability, in addition to sub-zero storage for
a minimum time.
Long Answer Questions
Question 1
Describe the key attributes of finished beer that are predetermined by
sweet wort composition (15)
Discuss how water composition, grist composition, and mashing
conditions are varied to create a lager sweet wort, a Pale Ale sweet wort,
and a Stout sweet wort (20)
Only one candidate chose to answer this question, with a score of 12.
Apart from colour, the other attributes of foam, aroma and flavour were
scantily described with no reference to individual wort components e.g.
nitrogenous components for foam, palate fullness and impact on ester
levels. There was no detail provided for water analysis and malt/adjunct
analysis that would be used for the different beer types and what
flavour/aroma contribution would be achieved by each material.
Question 2
With the aid of a time based graphical diagram describe the progress of
EITHER a Lager fermentation OR an Ale fermentation. Explain the
quantitative changes in temperature, specific gravity, yeast
concentration, pH, and Diacetyl (VDK) (20)
Briefly explain 6 factors that are essential to achieving satisfactory and
consistent fermentations (15)
12 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging from 8 to
26 and an average of 17.
Marks were awarded for correct graphs but good marks required an
explanation of what was happening during the fermentation e.g. pH drop
due to yeast excreting organic acids or drop in specific gravity due to yeast
converting sugar (heavier than water) to alcohol (lighter than water). Best
marks were given for correct typical values of different components only
one candidate quantified VDK values. With a few notable exceptions little
consideration was offered for the consequences of not controlling
fermentation temperature.
The factors required for satisfactory and consistent fermentations were
reasonably well covered but a surprising number of candidates missed out
wort oxygenation and wort composition (OG/fermentability, amino acids,
and trace metals). One candidate did not provide a long answer.
Zane Barnes
Module 2:
Unit 6 Carbonated Soft Drinks
Assignment
This assignment is designed to show that you understand how the water
used in the manufacture of soft drinks is prepared and treated prior to use:
Describe and explain the function of each step of the product water
treatment process installed at your own packaging plant, using diagrams
& photographs where appropriate (10)
Compare an alternative water treatment process with yours, highlighting
both the technical and economic aspects of each, with a view to
proposing any potential improvements that could be made to your
system (15)
17 candidates submitted this assignment, achieving an average mark of 16,
with the range of scores from 10 to 23.
The candidate was expected to demonstrate a sound working
understanding of the water treatment process at his/her own plant,
highlighting the function of each step with a written explanation and using
diagrams and/or photographic evidence to support this.
Structure is a crucial feature in the design of an assignment report, and so
the report should show a contents page, followed by an executive
summary and the detail asked for in the assignment brief. The examiner
should expect to see a diagrammatical representation of a process to
which the candidate can refer and/or annotate each individual step.
Should the candidate not have either first-hand knowledge of the process
or access to such a process at their site then a valid explanation of how
he/she has gone about researching the assignment should be evident in
the report. References should be noted and indexed. Numbered pages and
perhaps a glossary of terms are other features which would be expected to
appear in the report.
The majority of the candidates displayed a good sense of structure, with
introduction, contents, numbered pages and so on. Where some
candidates dropped marks was in the general absence of these features, or
when it appeared as though theyd purely lifted the relevant material from
the supplier manual.
In the second part of the assignment where a comparison is asked for
between the candidates own site process and an alternative example, the
candidate should be considering and describing the contrasting features of
note. The assignment asked for technical and economic aspects to be
highlighted, as well as potential improvements being proposed. Where
these were specifically identified by the candidate, recognition should be
made, but where improvements/suggestions are contributed by other
parties, reference and acknowledgment by the candidate would be are
expected. There were some first class examples of process comparison and
cost/process improvements, along with evidence of positivity and
assertiveness from one candidate who carried out research for the total
assignment on a different site to his/her own, owing to different
operations.
Those candidates who produced weaker scores on the second part of the
assignment were penalized mainly for poor attempts to compare/contrast
the alternative process to their own. One candidate proceeded to list
advantages and disadvantages for each process but not by comparison.
Short Answer Questions
17 candidates sat the exam, and achieved an average mark of 24, with
marks ranging from 11.5 to 36.
Section A of the examination paper featured 8 multiple choice questions
and 13 answer questions, the latter ranging in marks from one to three.
These covered aspects of the manufacturing supply chain including
product ingredients, process gases used in filling of soft drinks, key quality
features of brix and carbonation, labeling and warehousing.
Those areas of questions that were well answered covered properties of
carbon dioxide, stability of filling of carbonated soft drinks, types of filling
processes and the gases used for pressurizing filler bowls. The filling
operation is undoubtedly the crossroads of soft drinks manufacturing,
where product and primary packaging meet together, and so knowledge
and understanding of this particular process is paramount to the success of
the operation, in terms of efficiency and waste control.
It was therefore a surprise that the areas of weakest scoring appeared
especially in the questions relating to the understanding of the key
measures of brix and carbonation. This is basic (and essential) knowledge
for all involved in the filling of carbonated soft drinks, so it was a
disappointment to see a poor performance. Also, another question (Q7)
that saw 13 out of the 17 candidates fail to score maximum points related
to characteristics of aspartame. The candidates sadly missed the
connection with Q1 which in fact listed two out of five possible
characteristics of the sweetener.
Long Answer Questions
Question1
Draw and label the flow diagram for a PET bottling line, including
nominal speeds for all the main items of equipment (10)
List the different quality checks that should be undertaken in production
of soft drinks on this line, highlighting frequency (10)
Using a tabular format, explain:
the key loss areas encountered on a typical line
the type of loss (product, packaging, utilities/energy)
how the loss is measured
expected loss rates
how the loss can be minimised or corrected (15)
16 candidates chose to answer this question, with marks ranging between
12 and 28 and an average of 20.
The vast majority of candidates chose to answer this question, probably as
it presented them with an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge
and understanding of a production filling line. In general the flow diagrams
were, as the examiner expected, quite well presented although varying
levels of understanding were shown of nominal speeds for key items of
equipment, some more specific than others.
There was a varied quality of answers to the listing of quality checks, in
particular with relation to frequency. Those candidates who were much
more specific in their knowledge of frequency of checks gained higher
marks as compared to those who supplied rather sketchy answers.
The same standard was also seen in the third element of the question
regarding the tabular format of areas of types of loss. Few candidates gave
a good account of how losses could be minimized or corrected, and those
that did were rewarded accordingly.
Those candidates who scored low marks for this question provided very
weak answers, which may have reflected either a lack of effective time
management or just lack of understanding.
Examiners Report 2013 37
Question 2
List and contrast the features of cold-fill and hot-fill aseptic filling of soft
drinks (10)
Explain why and when aseptic filling would be considered for a soft drink
and list the essential criteria for defining a product, at ambient filling
temperature, as either sensitive or otherwise, highlighting the reasons
why these criteria are key in deciding the method of filling (25)
Only one candidate chose to answer this question, with a mark of 15.
This question quite specifically aimed at the relatively modern process of
aseptic filling and expected the candidate to offer knowledge and
understanding of the key elements of aseptic filling of soft drinks, both
cold and hot-fill.
The first element states quite clearly the need for the candidate to list and
contrast features. If only a list is provided, then marks were reduced
accordingly. As the question indicates, aseptic filling is a specific process of
filling soft drinks of a sensitive nature and so the contrast requirement is
an important aspect of the overall process requirement.
With regard to part 2 of the question, the candidate is expected to give a
clear explanation of why aseptic filling is utilized for certain types of soft
drinks again the question asks for essential criteria of sensitivity to be
listed, along with the need to highlight reasons for going down the route of
cold-fill or hot-fill. Clearly if a candidate is unfamiliar with the technical
aspects of aseptic filling, then this is not the question that he/she should
choose to answer.

Dick Charlton

38 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL CERTIFICATE
EXAMINATIONS

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

FBPB Nov 2012- May 2013 GCP Nov 2012- May 2013

The number of candidates sitting the IBDs entry level brewing and A total of 205 candidates sat the General Certificate in Packaging (Beer)
packaging examination, the Fundamentals of Brewing and Packaging of across all formats in the period November 2012 to May 2013, down
Beer, continues to grow steadily with a total of 125 candidates taking the slightly from 214 candidates for the equivalent period 2011-12. Better
examination in the period November 2012 to May 2013. The pass rate of news was that the pass rate of 66% was significantly higher than the 53%
82% compares favourably to the pass rate of 50% from the May 2012 from the equivalent period 2011-12.
examination. 37 credit passes and 25 distinctions (candidate scoring 90%
or more) demonstrates the commitment of the candidates to studying the
Learning Material. Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
GCP CAN 8 8 4 0 20

Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total GCP KEG 0 5 2 0 7

FBPB CF 20 33 37 25 115 GCP NRB 18 14 8 2 42

FBPB CASK 3 7 0 0 10 GCP RB 39 49 10 8 106

FBPB Total 23 40 37 25 125 GCP All Options 4 21 5 0 30

GCP Total 69 97 29 10 205

Fundamentals of Distilling
General Certificate in Distilling
FD Nov 2012- May 2013
GCD Nov 2012- May 2013
The number of candidates sitting the IBDs entry level distilling
examination, the Fundamentals of Distilling, also continues to grow A total of 183 candidates sat the General Certificate in Distilling across all
steadily with a total of 29 candidates taking the examination in the period three formats in the period November 2012 to May 2013, up from 153
November 2012 to May 2013. The pass rate of 69% compares favourably candidates for the equivalent period 2011-12. The pass rate of 52% was
to the pass rate of 58% from the May 2012 examination. significantly lower than the 57% from the equivalent period 2011-12. The
pass rate for the cereal option of 55% was significantly higher than for
those sitting the molasses option which, at 44%, was particularly
Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total disappointing.
FD 9 13 5 2 29
Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total

The Learning Material from both the FBPB and the FD qualifications can GCD Cereal 62 64 12 0 138
be purchased in book form from the IBDs bookshop at GCD Grape 0 1 0 0 1
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/IBD GCD Molasses 26 14 4 0 44
GCD Total 88 79 16 0 183
General Certificate in Brewing

GCB Nov 2012- May 2013

General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits)
A record 519 candidates sat the General Certificate in Brewing across all
formats in the period November 2012 to May 2013, up from 385 GCP(S) Nov 2012- May 2013
candidates for the equivalent period 2011-12. The pass rate of 59% was
up marginally from 58% last time. A total of 48 candidates sat the General Certificate in Packaging (Spirits)
across all formats in the period November 2012 to May 2013, slightly
down from 52 candidates for the equivalent period 2011-12. The pass rate
Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
of 81% was higher than the 79% from the equivalent period 2011-12.
GCB CF 185 165 84 8 442
GCB CASK 29 29 17 2 77
GCB Total 214 194 101 10 519 Fail Pass Credit Distinction Total
GCP(S) 9 23 13 3 48

An updated version of the General Certificate in Brewings Revision Notes

have been prepared by the GCB Examiners and will be made available to
all candidates registering for the November 2014 examination and
beyond.
Candidates are reminded that these General Certificate Examinations are
based upon knowledge and learning taken from within the Learning
Material, and that study should be targeted towards understanding each
section of this material. Some sections will have more asked in the
examination than other sections; this is detailed in the syllabus and is a
useful guide to allocating study time.

Examiners Report 2013 39

 Successful Candidates

The successful candidates from the 2013 Diploma and Master Brewer Examinations,
who met all the IBD criteria, are listed as follows:

MASTER BREWER

MB1 Passes
Susheel Kumar Agarwal Skol Breweries Ltd Thomas Spencer Marstons PLC
Astrid Elizabeth Bredenkamp South African Breweries Ltd Genevieve Upton Marstons PLC
Hugh Connolly Marstons PLC Stephen Whitehead Lion
Marina Du Plessis South African Breweries Ltd Chris Joel Willcock 4 Pines Microbrewery
Letitia Hamman South African Breweries Ltd
David Hill Marstons PLC MB3 Passes
Rupert Howard Hodgkins Shepherd Neame Ltd
Travis Audet Labatt Breweries of Canada
Peter Hofmann South African Breweries Ltd
Lindsay Matthew Crawford Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Marcelino Mahassa Cervejas De Mozambique
Louis Richard de Jager South African Breweries Ltd
Wade Paul McCann South African Breweries Ltd
Lawrence Egan Diageo Global Supply
Paula Alexandra Medronho South African Breweries Ltd
Lisa Marie Marlow Diageo Global Supply
Haydon Peter Morgan Lion
Patrick Joseph McGinty Marstons PLC
John Berchman Njoku Intafact Beverages Ltd
Richard John Moxom Diageo Global Supply
Viena Butshilani Nzana Delta Beverages Ltd
John Berchman Njoku Intafact Beverages Ltd
Sylva Okechukwu Okpara Nigerian Breweries PLC
Sam Shrimpton Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Fred Akoko Oluoch East African Breweries Ltd
Jo Tillson Wychwood Brewery Co. Ltd
Christopher Shilubane South African Breweries Ltd
Steven Andrew Tomblin Hall & Woodhouse Ltd
Stefan John Walker Cascade Brewery Co.Pty Ltd
Emma Louise Walton Lion
Chris John Wells Camerons Brewery Ltd
Robert Whelan Diageo Global Supply
Susheel Kumar Agarwal Skol Breweries Ltd
Astrid Elizabeth Bredenkamp South African Breweries Ltd
MB4 Passes
Hugh Connolly Marstons PLC
Marina Du Plessis South African Breweries Ltd Miles Chesterman Hogs Back Brewery Ltd
Letitia Hamman South African Breweries Ltd Lindsay Matthew Crawford Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
David Hill Marstons PLC Alan Dempsey Diageo Global Supply
Rupert Howard Hodgkins Shepherd Neame Ltd Oluwaseun Faturiyele Nigerian Breweries PLC
Peter Hofmann South African Breweries Ltd Tully Hadley Carlton & United Breweries
Martin Hall Banks (Barbados) Breweries Ltd
MB2 Passes
Belinda Jennings Adnams & Co.PLC
Visva Malayalam Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia
Michael Badura Diageo Global Supply
Bhavya Mandanna Molson Coors Brewing Ltd
Dawn Marie Baldry Greene King PLC
Apiwe Philela Nxusani
Craig Douglas Bennett Heineken UK Ltd
Robert Whelan Diageo Global Supply
Astrid Elizabeth Bredenkamp South African Breweries Ltd
Christopher Cook Fuller Smith & Turner PLC MB5 Passes
Julriech Mark Farmer South African Breweries Ltd
Mathew Henney Dartmoor Brewery Ltd Inalegwu Adoga Nigerian Breweries PLC
Bhavya Mandanna Molson Coors Brewing Ltd Abiodun Bamidele Ajayi Nigerian Breweries PLC
Wade Paul McCann South African Breweries Ltd Ragihalli Ashoka Skol Breweries Ltd
Paula Alexandra Medronho South African Breweries Ltd Louis Richard de Jager South African Breweries Ltd
Haydon Peter Morgan Lion Alan Dempsey Diageo Global Supply
John Berchman Njoku Intafact Beverages Ltd Oluwaseun Faturiyele Nigerian Breweries PLC
Viena Butshilani Nzana Delta Beverages Ltd Tully Hadley Carlton & United Breweries
Sylva Okechukwu Okpara Nigerian Breweries PLC Belinda Jennings Adnams & Co. PLC
Luis Ortega Robert Patrick Kelly Diageo Australia Ltd
David Rogers John O'Brien
Samuel Thomas Seward Fosters Australia Ltd Fearghal Patrick O'Connor Diageo Australia Ltd
Christopher Shilubane South African Breweries Ltd Omololu Dada Ogunkeye Nigerian Breweries PLC

40 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 Olusoji Oladapo Ogunsola Guinness Nigeria PLC Adrien Bikorimana Brasseries Heineken
Fred Akoko Oluoch East African Breweries Ltd Richard Frank Blackburn Anheuser-Busch InBev
Manoj Thandel Skol Breweries Ltd Florian Bocsa Ursus Breweries
Jo Tillson Wychwood Brewery Co. Ltd Adrienn Bodonyi Dreher Breweries Ltd
Robert Whelan Diageo Global Supply Liesbeth Bommer Heineken Nederland BV
Makgosi Booysen South African Breweries Ltd
Thomas Brewer SABMiller PLC
MASTER BREWER
Ian Browne University of California (Davis)
Lucas Buchera Tanzania Breweries Ltd
AWARDED MASTER BREWER QUALIFICATION HAVING
COMPLETED ALL 5 MODULES Olivia Karen Beth Bullock Heineken UK Ltd
Luke Burcham University of California (Davis)
Abiodun Bamidele Ajayi Nigerian Breweries PLC Christopher John Byrom Heineken UK Ltd
Travis Audet Labatt Breweries of Canada Guilherme Campos Lopes Tagilskoe Pivo
Alan Dempsey Diageo Global Supply Eva Candido
Oluwaseun Faturiyele Nigerian Breweries PLC Paul William Carson Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd
Tully Ceman Patrick Hadley Carlton & United Breweries Vishwanath Chauhan Skol Breweries Ltd
Louis Richard de Jager South African Breweries Ltd Christopher Cheeseman Westerham Brewery Ltd
Belinda Jennings Adnams & Co.PLC Kay Mun Chey Guinness Anchor Berhad
Robert Patrick Kelly Diageo Australia Ltd Tapiwa Chingozho Delta Beverages Ltd
John O'Brien Tatenda Chivaura
Fearghal Patrick O'Connor Diageo Australia Ltd Simona Cirstinescu Ursus Breweries
Omololu Dada Ogunkeye Nigerian Breweries PLC Samuel David Clayman Red Tape Brewing Company
David Rogers Samuel James Clemens Long Trail Brewing Company
Manoj Parameshwara Thandel Skol Breweries Ltd Lorelei Coryn Heineken Nederland BV
Emma Louise Walton Lion Stefano Cossi William Worthington Brewery
Nicholas Allen Crandall Craft Brewers Alliance
Robert Whelan Diageo Global Supply
Karen Alexander Dabaghyan MillerCoors LLC
Georgina Davey Heineken UK Ltd
DIPLOMA IN BREWING Babatunde Dawodu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Quentin Decornet
Module 1 Passes Sharan Prasad Desai Skol Breweries Ltd
Kanza Dinkiesa Heineken Bralima
Kagiso Peter Diyane South African Breweries Ltd
Dalton Daniel Adu Accra Brewery Ltd
Mafika Simon Dlamini South African Breweries Ltd
Adeolu Andrew Afolami Nigerian Breweries PLC
Dominic Driscoll Thornbridge Brewery
Anulika Uchechi Akuagbazie Nigerian Breweries PLC
Chinenye Helen Durunguma Nigerian Breweries PLC
James Alexander Allen Barrett Burston Malting Pty
Hazvineyi Dzvimbo Delta Beverages Ltd
Oluwaseyi Alu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Omorefe Egbobawaye Nigerian Breweries PLC
Kristy Ryan Anak Sungom Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia
Benjamin Einhaus University of California (Davis)
Claire Andeso East African Breweries Ltd
Uche Thaddeus Ekwebelem Consolidated Breweries PLC
Robert Andrew Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Sunday Elkana Nigerian Breweries PLC
Justin Ang Russian River Brewing Company
Nelson Emegwali Champion Breweries PLC
Solange Maria Anjos Cervejas De Mozambique
Stephen E Exinger Carlton & United Breweries
Nana Adjoa Anokye Accra Brewery Ltd
Marat Fazylbekov SABMiller RUS LLC
Felix Kweku Arhin Accra Brewery Ltd
Bobby Fleshman University of California (Davis)
Olamilekan Aro Nigerian Breweries PLC
Oludayo Ibrahim Folarin Nigerian Breweries PLC
Joel iel Aryeetey Accra Brewery Ltd
Alan Paul Charles Fulcher Greene King PLC
Taiwo Oladele Asaolu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Robert Fulwiler Fremont Brewing Co
John Ayoola Nigerian Breweries PLC
Marcela Gadei Ursus Breweries
Stephen Robert Babler Long Trail Brewing Company
Michael Galbraith
Eric Bachli University of California (Davis)
Ogomoditse Iris Galodikwe Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Scott Baigent Eight Degrees Brewing Co. Ltd
T Ganessan Skol Breweries Ltd
Christelle Barilley Heineken France
Denis Gasigwa Heineken Brasseries Rwanda
Francina Bastiaanse Heineken Nederland BV
Heavenly Gathu East African Breweries Ltd
Graham Bathgate SABMiller PLC Amgad Sabry Ghaly Heineken Egypt
Tommy Bibliowicz University of California (Davis) Iulia Ghioc Ursus Breweries

Examiners Report 2013 41

Sumit Ghosh Skol Breweries Ltd Lucas Leczkowski Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Cathal Thomas Gildea Diageo Global Supply Jo Lee Utah Brewers Cooperative
Tyler Glaze University of California (Davis) Vincent Leroy Lewis Carlsberg UK Ltd
Eng Chow Goh Guinness Anchor Berhad Yee Fong Lim Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd
Gunther Karl Goldschmidt South African Breweries Ltd Christopher Livesay DB Breweries Ltd
William Gomes University of California (Davis) Benjamin Loomis University of California (Davis)
Alfonso Gomez Franco Heineken Bralima Ajay M Skol Breweries Ltd
Christopher Gooch The Teme Valley Brewery Matthew John Mableson South Australian Brewing
Marius Ovidiu Grad Ursus Breweries Michael Magee Eight Degrees Brewing Co.
Mark Grimson Lion Didace Maniratanga Brasseries Heineken
Luke Groves J Boag & Son Brewing Ltd Guylian Mantezolo Heineken Bralima
Ashesh Gupta Skol Breweries Ltd Sarah Marshall Shepherd Neame Ltd
Ian Harbage Long Trail Brewing Company Mark Mathis University of California (Davis)
Jacob Harper Deschutes Brewery Inc Steven Matthews Bayside Distillers
Patrick Hayes University of California (Davis) Padraig McCarthy Diageo Global Supply
Danielle Heaton Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Philip McCormick University of California (Davis)
Elliott Herman Niagara College James Colin McDermet Fremont Brewing Co.
Andrew Heyboer New Holland Brewing Co. Carrie Mclachlan Little Creatures Brewery
Corey Hiller Molson Coors Canada Scott McLeod Castlemaine Perkins Pty Ltd
Andrew Hoffrock Anheuser-Busch InBev Oniccah Mamadia Mdumela South African Breweries Ltd
Ewoud-Jan Hueting Heineken Nederland BV Thierry Metho Heineken Bourbon
Sonya Cecilia Hunnisett Lion Anita Mihailescu Ursus Breweries
Omokaro Isiakpere Nigerian Breweries PLC Ezra Mizer MillerCoors LLC
Lindsey Jamieson Tennent Caledonian Ltd Pavan Moolraj Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Sirinard Jantawong Thai Asia Pacific Brewery Agnieszka Morgan Heineken UK Ltd
Paul Chistopher Johns Fosters Australia Ltd Evarist Joseph Mtei Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Bruce Johnson University of California (Davis) Lawrence Mutua Mumo East African Breweries Ltd
Timothy Harrison Jones Cascade Brewery Co. Pty Ltd Timothy Murimi Muriithi East African Breweries Ltd
Sebastiaan Joustra Heineken Nederland BV Dhandapani Muruganandam Skol Breweries Ltd
Aaron Justus Ballast Point Brewing & Spirits Nicolas Muzzin Molson Coors Canada
Shekar K Skol Breweries Ltd James Joseph Mwaikambo Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Silas Kaale MillerCoors LLC Jean Marie Narabamenye Heineken Rwanda
Fridah Mwendwa Kaaria East African Breweries Ltd Gururaj Naragund SABMiller India
Balion Kabata Heineken Bralima Ngqabutho Ncube Delta Beverages Ltd
Corey Curtis Kellman Banks (Barbados) Ltd Andrew Nguyen CMBT Canada
Breanne Kennedy University of California (Davis) Daniel Kamau Njuguna East African Breweries Ltd
Joycelyn Adelaide Kersi Accra Brewery Ltd Thembi Nkambule South African Breweries Ltd
Sabelo Khuzwayo South African Breweries Ltd Asavela Nkebe South African Breweries Ltd
Kazala Kilalo Tanzania Breweries Ltd Ifeanyi Nnamani Nigerian Breweries PLC
Tomas Kincl Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s Colin Shaun Nouch Greene King PLC
Justin Charles Kingsford Utah Brewers Cooperative Norbert Ntahiraja Brasseries Heineken
Shawn Kirkpatrick MillerCoors Gordon Chuks Nwasiwe Nigerian Breweries PLC
Kathryn Lawson Kleboe Lion Chinonso Nwugha Nigerian Breweries PLC
Sean Peter Knight Sambrook's Brewery Ltd Thaddee Nyandwi Brasseries Heineken
Gregory Knox University of California (Davis) Abdoul Nzirasanaho Heineken Rwanda
Thankachen Kottor Skol Breweries Ltd Nzube Paschal Obah Nigerian Breweries PLC
Matthew Jeremy Kouw Lion Robert Obree South African Breweries Ltd
Miloslava Kovackova Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s Patricia O'Day-Greenfield MillerCoors
Margaret Kwela Delta Beverages Ltd Louise O'Driscoll Kerry
Omolade Ladejobi Guinness Nigeria PLC Ikechukwu Victor Ofodu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Rodrigo Lago W J King & Co. (Brewers) Raymond Isioma Ofulue Nigerian Breweries PLC
Yan Yee Lam Augustine Ogunjobi Nigerian Breweries PLC
Jason Wesley Lappe Carlton & United Breweries Olatunde Ojo Nigerian Breweries PLC
Tukaram Keraba Latane Skol Breweries Ltd Oliver Okoro International Breweries PLC
Ye Min Latt Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd Gabriel Olatoye Guinness Nigeria PLC
Stephen James Lawrence University of Nottingham Adekunle Olusoga Consolidated Breweries PLC

42 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Joshua Raymond Omambala Nigerian Breweries PLC Wouter Steyn SABMiller PLC
Amenawoh Omhenke Nigerian Breweries PLC Lucie Svejdova Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s
Anthony Onyeacho Nigerian Breweries PLC Martin Louis Swann Fosters Australia Ltd
Anda Oprea Ursus Breweries Boon Tiong Ben Tan Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd
Thirmulalai Pandiaraj Skol Breweries Ltd Darren Tan Lion
Geanina Cristina Paraschiv Ursus Breweries Eunice Naa Mateki Tawiah Accra Brewery Ltd
Mark Peffers Gilded Otter Brewing Co. Philippe Taylor Molson Coors Canada
David Pelny MillerCoors LLC Kevin Te Wierik Carlton & United Breweries
John Gerald Perry Heineken UK Ltd Vuyisile Samuel Thibane SAB Ltd
Lien Pham Thi Ngoc Vietnam Brewery Ltd Blake Thompson University of California (Davis)
Katlego Asnath Pheeha Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Le Ngoc Thuy Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Luiz Fernando Pizzani Cortlandt Toczylowski University of California (Davis)
Etienne Plante-Fortier Molson Coors Canada Kenjiro Tomita University of California (Davis)
Zachary Plowright Turning Point Samuel Tourle Malt Shovel Brewery Ltd
Stewart John Poulter Oakham Ales Peter Trapani Sierra Nevada Brewing Co
Rabinarayan Pradhan Skol Breweries Ltd Stefan Trimble Heineken
Niranjan Pradhan Skol Breweries Ltd Alexandros Tsilimigkras Athenian Brewery SA
Dwight Andrew Preston Molson Coors Canada Bui Minh Tu Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Alexzander Rabe Rough Draft Brewing Co. John Patrick Tumwebaze Uganda Breweries Ltd
Yuvaneswari Ramasamy Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia Bruce Turner Meantime Brewing Co. Ltd
S Ramkumar Skol Breweries Ltd Marcel Uhoraningoga Bralirwa Ltd
Vijaya Kumar Rangaswamy Skol Breweries Ltd Thomas John Van Deelen
Subrahmanyeswara Rao Skol Breweries Ltd Tom Van der Veen Heineken Nederland BV
Andre Raposo Dos Santos Silva Heineken USA Remco Van der Velde Heineken Nederland BV
Marc Rehfuss University of California (Davis) Janneke Annemiek Van Renterghem Heineken Nederland BV
Patrick Reilly MillerCoors LLC Fabiano Varella Garcia MillerCoors LLC
Darin Riggs University of California (Davis) Anca-Elena Vasiliu Ursus Breweries
Mark Robinson Utah Brewers Cooperative Shiv Kumar Verma United Breweries Ltd
Leendert Roossink Heineken Nederland BV Robert Vickers University of California (Davis)
Paula Michelle Rose Banks (Barbados) Ltd MR Vijay Skol Breweries Ltd
Samuel John Rossetti Heineken UK Ltd Jake Wadsworth
Vicki Rubinstein University of California (Davis) Cameron Wallace Eight Degrees Brewing Co.
Jason Russell MillerCoors Alex Whitehurst University of California (Davis)
Samuel Joseph Russell York Brewery Co.Ltd Martyn Paul Whittaker Heineken UK Ltd
Ernesto Jose Salas Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Tamisha Williams Banks (Barbados) Ltd
Olumide Salu Nigerian Breweries PLC Michael Peter Wootton Everards Brewery Ltd
Tim Salyers University of California (Davis) Keith Wright Carlsberg UK Ltd
Emanuel Sawe Tanzania Breweries Ltd Jabes Odago Yala East African Breweries Ltd
Mark Schiess University of California (Davis) Phumuzile Ndhlovu Yalala Delta Beverages Ltd
Fenias Leao Sebastiao Cervejas De Mozambique Jun Liang Yeap Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia
Renesh Sewnarian South African Breweries Ltd Wenyan Zhang DB Breweries Ltd
Simon Shannon FDT Consulting Arthur Zimmerman University of California (Davis)
Julie Sharman Marstons PLC Ulices Matias Zita Cervejas De Mozambique
Fezeka Shazi South African Breweries Ltd Donald Zuehlke MillerCoors LLC
Brian John Short Ephynos Zvainaka Delta Beverages Ltd
Gregory John Short Casella Wines Pty Ltd
Benoit Sibomana Bralirwa Ltd Module 2 Passes
Thandeka Simelane Swaziland Breweries Ltd
Brett Daryl Sinclair Lion Adeolu Andrew Afolami Nigerian Breweries PLC
Edward Slater Marstons PLC Anulika Uchechi Akuagbazie Nigerian Breweries PLC
Robert Adam Luke Smith Meantime Brewing Co. Ltd Oluwaseyi Aiyetutu Alu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company Justin Ang Russian River Brewing Co.
Satish Solanke Skol Breweries Ltd Victoria Troaca Ariho Uganda Breweries Ltd
Petre Marius Stanciulescu Ursus Breweries Olamilekan Aro Nigerian Breweries PLC
Stephens University of California (Davis) Ekpen Bright Atabhujie Nigerian Breweries PLC
Dennis James Stewart Matilda Bay Brewing Co.Ltd John Ayoola Nigerian Breweries PLC

Examiners Report 2013 43

Eric Bachli University of California (Davis) Justin Charles Kingsford Utah Brewers Cooperative
Hardeep Bajwa Skol Breweries Ltd Luyen Le Thi Thanh Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Timothy Stuart Barber Metalman Brewing Ltd. Jo Lee Utah Brewers Cooperative
Adribert Baregensabe Brasseries Heineken Benjamin Loomis University of California (Davis)
Christelle Barilley Heineken Entreprise France Nicholas Lubwama Nile Breweries Ltd
Hayley Barton Cumbrian Legendary Ales Michael Magee Eight Degrees Brewing Co.
Edward Richard Bates Rebellion Beer Company Ghislain Mahambu Heineken Bralima
Graham Bathgate SABMiller PLC Babalakin Simeon Makanjuola International Breweries PLC
Katherine Bexfield Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Mark Mathis University of California (Davis)
Evariste Bizimana Brasseries Heineken Didier Mbola Heineken Bralima
Adrienn Bodonyi Dreher Breweries Ltd Padraig McCarthy Diageo Global Supply
Akos Istvan Bodos Heineken UK Ltd Philip McCormick University of California (Davis)
Liesbeth Bommer Heineken Nederland BV James Colin McDermet Fremont Brewing Co
Makgosi Booysen South African Breweries Ltd Barry James McDougall Diageo Global Supply
Kraig Alan Bridgeford Lost Coast Brewery David John McGovern The chiltern Brewery
Andrew Bullied Village Brewery James McSweeney Diageo Global Supply
Wouter Hermanus Buschgens Delphin Mitshabu Heineken Bralima
Paul Bwamiki Uganda Breweries Ltd Liliana Moldoveanu Ursus Breweries
Carme Cervantes Casado Mission Brewery Reoagile Monageng Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Tatenda Chivaura Pavan Moolraj Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Jeffrey Edward Collins Heineken UK Ltd Aimable Munezero Brasseries Heineken
Babatunde Dawodu Nigerian Breweries PLC Dominic Maingi Mutiso East African Breweries Ltd
Raymond Dolo Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Jean Marie Vianney Narabamenye Heineken Du Rwanda Ltd
Chinenye Helen Durunguma Nigerian Breweries PLC Ngqabutho Ncube Delta Beverages Ltd
Hazvineyi Dzvimbo Delta Beverages Ltd Xavier Ndabi Heineken Bralima
Omorefe Egbobawaye Nigerian Breweries PLC Jacques Ngaba Heineken Bralima
Graham Ellis Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Dynes Ngoma Delta Beverages Ltd
Luke Erdody Gordon Biersch Daniel Kamau Njuguna East African Breweries Ltd
Brennan Fleming University of California (Davis) Samuel Njuki Nile Breweries Ltd
Adam Fletcher Marstons PLC Asavela Nkebe South African Breweries Ltd
Oludayo Ibrahim Folarin Nigerian Breweries PLC Lindiwe Nkosi South African Breweries Ltd
Josephine Foley Diageo Global Supply Richard Ntikala Heineken Bralima
Robert Fulwiler Fremont Brewing Co Langelihle Ntloko South African Breweries Ltd
Amgad Sabry Ghaly Heineken - Egypt Gordon Chuks Nwasiwe Nigerian Breweries PLC
Tyler Glaze University of California (Davis) Chinonso Nwugha Nigerian Breweries PLC
Chialee Goh Lion Nzube Paschal Obah Nigerian Breweries PLC
Gunther Karl Goldschmidt South African Breweries Ltd Esther Ntende Odongol Nile Breweries Ltd
Aaron Golston MillerCoors Ikechukwu Victor Ofodu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Christopher Hampshire Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Olatunde Ojo Nigerian Breweries PLC
Patrick Hayes University of California (Davis) Felix Santos Okumu Nile Breweries Ltd
Feodora Heavey Diageo Global Supply Joshua Raymond Omambala Nigerian Breweries PLC
Corey Hiller Molson Coors Canada Amenawoh Omhenke Nigerian Breweries PLC
Omokaro Isiakpere Nigerian Breweries PLC Patrick O'Neill Diageo Global Supply
David Martyn Jenkins Frederick Ryan Orndorff Grizzly Paw Brewing Co.
Bruce Johnson University of California (Davis) Peter Owuor East African Breweries Ltd
Sebastiaan Joustra Heineken Nederland BV Veronique Paradis Laporte Consultants
Aaron Justus Ballast Point Brewing Neil Partridge Zeton Inc
Silas Kaale MillerCoors LLC Helene Perrotin-Brunel Heineken Group Supply
Fridah Mwendwa Kaaria East African Breweries Ltd Luiz Fernando Pizzani
Paul Kaposela Heineken Bralima Etienne Plante-Fortier Molson Coors Canada
Corey Curtis Kellman Banks (Barbados) Ltd Eamonn Power Diageo Global Supply
Breanne Kennedy University of California (Davis) Alexzander Rabe Rough Draft Brewing Co.
Sabelo Khuzwayo South African Breweries Ltd Marc Rehfuss University of California (Davis)
Jackson Kilimani Nile Breweries Ltd Patrick Reilly MillerCoors LLC
Myung-Keon Kim Boundary Road Brewery Darin Riggs University of California (Davis)
Roger Kinga Heineken Bralima Mark Robinson Utah Brewers Cooperative

44 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

 Leendert Roossink Heineken Nederland BV Niamh Eileen Cashell Diageo Global Supply
Jason Russell MillerCoors Carme Cervantes Casado Mission Brewery
Olumide Salu Nigerian Breweries PLC Goldwin Chan Molson Coors Canada
Tim Salyers University of California (Davis) Tapiwa Chingozho Delta Beverages Ltd
Emanuel Sawe Tanzania Breweries Ltd Subhra Chowdhury United Breweries Ltd
Mark Schiess University of California (Davis) Melinda Jane Christophersen Fosters Australia Ltd
Brandon Gerhard Schmid Rieger Consultants James Andrew Dale Castlemaine Perkins Ltd
Gomolemo Gillian Seboko South African Breweries Ltd Jephthah Yaw Datsomor Guinness Ghana Ltd
Fezeka Shazi South African Breweries Ltd Costel Davidescu Ursus Breweries
Gregory John Short Casella Wines Pty Ltd Bruce Steven Draper Malt Shovel Brewery Ltd
Benoit Sibomana Bralirwa Ltd Chinenye Helen Durunguma Nigerian Breweries PLC
Nonkosi Sithole Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Hazvineyi Dzvimbo Delta Beverages Ltd
Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company Omorefe Egbobawaye Nigerian Breweries PLC
Stephens University of California (Davis) Benjamin Einhaus University of California (Davis)
Duncan James Stewart Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ossie Eldebs Fosters Australia Ltd
Wouter Steyn SABMiller PLC Bobby Fleshman University of California (Davis)
Lucie Svejdova Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s Oludayo Ibrahim Folarin Nigerian Breweries PLC
Timothy Michael Symons Lion Josephine Foley Diageo Global Supply
Eunice Naa Mateki Tawiah Accra Brewery Ltd Stephen Frazier Old Line Brewers
Philippe Taylor Molson Coors Canada Robert Fulwiler Fremont Brewing Co
Phat Thai SABMiller Vietnam Tyler Glaze University of California (Davis)
Dan Thomas Heineken UK Ltd Fiona Gogo East African Breweries Ltd
Kenjiro Tomita University of California (Davis) David Gunn MillerCoors
Peter Trapani Sierra Nevada Brewing Co Scott Hampton DB Breweries Ltd
Alexandros Tsilimigkras Athenian Brewery SA Patrick Hayes University of California (Davis)
Ross Turner Pure Malt Products Ltd Daniel Israel Heary Little Creatures Brewery
Thomas Hendrik Van den Berg Heineken Nederland BV John Hensley
Melt Dwayne Van der Spuy Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Corey Hiller Molson Coors Canada
Pauwel Van Nieuwenhove Heineken Nederland BV Marta Horofker
Janneke Annemiek Van Renterghem Heineken Nederland BV Omokaro Isiakpere Nigerian Breweries PLC
Fabiano Varella Garcia MillerCoors LLC Nelson Joel Jeannie Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Matheril Krishnan Venugopalan Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd Bruce Johnson University of California (Davis)
Valentine Wambui East African Breweries Ltd Andrew Edward Jones Lion
Maurice Yossa Guinness Cameroon SA Fridah Mwendwa Kaaria East African Breweries Ltd
Arthur Zimmerman University of California (Davis) Andrew Wanjohi Kagenya East African Breweries Ltd
Donald Zuehlke MillerCoors LLC Toshihiro Kamada Kirin Brewery Co.Ltd
Breanne Kennedy University of California (Davis)
Sabelo Khuzwayo South African Breweries Ltd
Module 3 Passes Sandhea Devi Kiran Fosters Group Pacific Ltd.
Ankie Langerak Heineken Nederland BV
Adeolu Andrew Afolami Nigerian Breweries PLC David Lenske Fosters Australia Ltd
Anulika Uchechi Akuagbazie Nigerian Breweries PLC Christopher Collyns Livesay DB Breweries Ltd
Matthew Anderson Anheuser-Busch InBev Jimmy Julius Lucas Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Claire Andeso East African Breweries Ltd Joel Makena SAB Ltd
Justin Ang Russian River Brewing Co. Mark Mathis University of California (Davis)
Agnes Ewura Appiah Seychelles Breweries Ltd Hamish McArthur Lion
Victoria Troaca Ariho Uganda Breweries Ltd Philip McCormick University of California (Davis)
Olamilekan Aro Nigerian Breweries PLC James Colin McDermet Fremont Brewing Co
John Ayoola Nigerian Breweries PLC Garry Menz Fosters Australia Ltd
Eric Bachli University of California (Davis) Christopher Mitchell South African Breweries Ltd
Graham Bathgate SABMiller PLC Rachel Refiloe Moilwa South African Breweries Ltd
Timothy John Best Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Ian Hardicker Moon Thomas Hardy Holdings Ltd
Barbara Boatemaah Guinness Ghana Ltd Lawraine Prunella Morel Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Adrienn Bodonyi Dreher Breweries Ltd Frances Muhoro East African Breweries Ltd
Makgosi Booysen South African Breweries Ltd Timothy Murimi Muriithi East African Breweries Ltd
Craig Matthew Buddle Lion Lloyd Mutimbanyoka Delta Beverages Ltd

Examiners Report 2013 45

Ngqabutho Ncube Delta Beverages Ltd Justin Ang Russian River Brewing Co.
Dynes Ngoma Delta Beverages Ltd Victoria Troaca Ariho Uganda Breweries Ltd
Vinod Nikam Skol Breweries Ltd Olamilekan Aro Nigerian Breweries PLC
Asavela Nkebe South African Breweries Ltd Ekpen Bright Atabhujie Nigerian Breweries PLC
Gordon Chuks Nwasiwe Nigerian Breweries PLC John Ayoola Nigerian Breweries PLC
Nzube Paschal Obah Nigerian Breweries PLC Eric Bachli University of California (Davis)
Fearghal O'Flaherty Diageo Global Supply Hardeep Bajwa Skol Breweries Ltd
Ikechukwu Victor Ofodu Nigerian Breweries PLC Graham Bathgate SABMiller PLC
Olatunde Ojo Nigerian Breweries PLC Timothy John Best Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Gerald Okol Nile Breweries Ltd Katherine Bexfield Molson Coors Brewing (UK)
Amenawoh Omhenke Nigerian Breweries PLC Barbara Boatemaah Guinness Ghana Ltd
Margaret Kemunto Orina East African Breweries Ltd Adrienn Bodonyi Dreher Breweries Ltd
Frederick Ryan Orndorff Grizzly Paw Brewing Co. Akos Istvan Bodos Heineken UK Ltd
Etienne Plante-Fortier Molson Coors Canada Makgosi Booysen South African Breweries Ltd
Alexzander Rabe Rough Draft Brewing Co. Craig Matthew Buddle Lion
Valeriu Radu Ursus Breweries Andrew Bullied Village Brewery
Subrahmanyeswara Rao Skol Breweries Ltd Paul Bwamiki Uganda Breweries Ltd
Marc Rehfuss University of California (Davis) Niamh Eileen Cashell Diageo Global Supply
Patrick Reilly MillerCoors LLC Carme Cervantes Casado Mission Brewery
Darin Riggs University of California (Davis) Kay Mun Chey Guinness Anchor Berhad
Nicolene Rodriques South African Breweries Ltd Melinda Jane Christophersen Fosters Australia Ltd
Leendert Roossink Heineken Nederland BV Jeffrey Edward Collins Heineken UK Ltd
Ernesto Jose Salas Molson Coors Brewing (UK) James Andrew Dale Castlemaine Perkins Pty Ltd
Olumide Salu Nigerian Breweries PLC Costel Davidescu Ursus Breweries
Tim Salyers University of California (Davis) Jephthah Yaw Datsomor Guinness Ghana Ltd
Aleksandr Sanin EFES Russia Bruce Steven Draper Malt Shovel Brewery Ltd
Brandon Gerhard Schmid Rieger Consultants Chinenye Helen Durunguma Nigerian Breweries PLC
Simon Shannon FDT Consulting Hazvineyi Dzvimbo Delta Beverages Ltd
Victor Sithole SAB Malting Ltd Omorefe Egbobawaye Nigerian Breweries PLC
Nonkosi Sithole Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd Luke Erdody Gordon Biersch
Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company Oluwaseun Faturiyele Nigerian Breweries PLC
Nathan Stephens University of California (Davis) Brennan Fleming University of California (Davis)
Wouter Steyn SABMiller PLC Oludayo Ibrahim Folarin Nigerian Breweries PLC
Philippe Taylor Molson Coors Canada Josephine Foley Diageo Global Supply
Simon Teeling Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd Robert Fulwiler Fremont Brewing Co
Dan Thomas Heineken UK Ltd Amgad Sabry Ghaly Heineken - Egypt
Cortlandt Toczylowski University of California (Davis) Tyler Glaze University of California (Davis)
Peter Trapani Sierra Nevada Brewing Co David Gunn MillerCoors
Remon Tromp Heineken Nederland BV Scott Nathan Hampton DB Breweries Ltd
Kome Doris Utulu Guinness Nigeria PLC Patrick Hayes University of California (Davis)
Fabiano Varella Garcia MillerCoors LLC Daniel Israel Heary Little Creatures Brewery
Robert Vickers University of California (Davis) John Hensley
Alex Whitehurst University of California (Davis) Corey Hiller Molson Coors Canada
Mitchel Joel Woodhouse Lion Marta Horofker
Arthur Zimmerman University of California (Davis) Henrietta Chinenye Ilozumba Guinness Nigeria PLC
Donald Zuehlke MillerCoors LLC Omokaro Isiakpere Nigerian Breweries PLC
Ephynos Zvainaka Delta Beverages Ltd Bruce Johnson University of California (Davis)
Andrew Edward Jones Lion
Fridah Mwendwa Kaaria East African Breweries Ltd
AWARDED DIPLOMA IN BREWING QUALIFICATION
Toshihiro Kamada Kirin Brewery Co.Ltd
HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES
Breanne Kennedy University of California (Davis)
Sabelo Khuzwayo South African Breweries Ltd
Adeolu Andrew Afolami Nigerian Breweries PLC
Sandhea Devi Kiran Fosters Group Pacific Ltd.
Olufemi Ayodeji Ajileye Nigerian Breweries PLC
Ankie Langerak Heineken Nederland BV
Anulika Uchechi Akuagbazie Nigerian Breweries PLC
Luyen Le Thi Thanh Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Matthew Anderson Anheuser-Busch InBev
David Lenske Fosters Australia Ltd

46 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

Joel Makena SAB Ltd DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING
Mark Mathis University of California (Davis)
Module 1 Passes
Philip McCormick University of California (Davis)
James Colin McDermet Fremont Brewing Co
Doan Anthony Bellman Beverages Adv. Services
James McSweeney Diageo Global Supply
Rebecca Byrne Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Garry Menz Fosters Australia Ltd
George Andrew Campbell Diageo Global Supply
Rachel Refiloe Moilwa South African Breweries Ltd
Andrew George Cant Diageo Global Supply
Ian Hardicker Moon Thomas Hardy Holdings Ltd
Elaine Cassidy Diageo Global Supply
Lawraine Prunella Morel Seychelles Breweries Ltd
Karen Lorraine Chadwick Diageo Australia Ltd
Lloyd Mutimbanyoka Delta Beverages Ltd
Richard Anthony Cowley Diageo Global Supply
Ngqabutho Ncube Delta Beverages Ltd
Dagmara Dabrowska Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Dynes Ngoma Delta Beverages Ltd
Kirsty Rachel Dagnan Diageo Global Supply
Vinod Nikam Skol Breweries Ltd
Rebecca Eccles SWRI
Daniel Kamau Njuguna East African Breweries Ltd
Aidan Patrick Finnegan Diageo Global Supply
Asavela Nkebe South African Breweries Ltd
Andrina Fitzgerald Beam Global
Lindiwe Nkosi South African Breweries Ltd
Calum James Fraser Diageo Global Supply
Gordon Chuks Nwasiwe Nigerian Breweries PLC
Mark Gardiner Diageo Global Supply
Nzube Paschal Obah Nigerian Breweries PLC
Jennifer Ruth Graham North British Distillery Ltd
Esther Ntende Odongol Nile Breweries Ltd
Aoife Hamill FDT Consulting
Fearghal O'Flaherty Diageo Global Supply
Thomas Frederick Healy
Ikechukwu Victor Ofodu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Charles Ewan Jamieson The Edrington Group
Olatunde Ojo Nigerian Breweries PLC
Alistair Scott Mackenzie Diageo Global Supply
Gerald Okol Nile Breweries Ltd
Duncan Henry MacLellan Tomatin Distillery
Amenawoh Omhenke Nigerian Breweries PLC
Kevin Robert MacPherson Whyte and Mackay Ltd
Patrick O'Neill Diageo Global Supply
Tambudzai Makunde African Distillers
Frederick Ryan Orndorff Grizzly Paw Brewing Co.
Rachel Mark Diageo Global Supply
Peter Owuor East African Breweries Ltd
John Benedict McGhee Doyle Diageo Global Supply
Veronique Paradis Laporte Consultants
Tyryn McKeown Bundaberg Distilling Co.
Neil Partridge Zeton Inc
Heather Janet Miller Diageo Global Supply
Etienne Plante-Fortier Molson Coors Canada
Gareth Morgan The Edrington Group
Alexzander Rabe Rough Draft Brewing Co.
Andrew Morrison Nairn Diageo Global Supply
Marc Rehfuss University of California (Davis)
Hullec Ndunah African Distillers
Patrick Reilly MillerCoors LLC
John O'Connor
Darin Riggs University of California (Davis)
Craig Michael Stewart Diageo Global Supply
Leendert Roossink Heineken Nederland BV
Roselyn C Thomson John Dewar & Sons Ltd
Olumide Salu Nigerian Breweries PLC
Laura Michelle Vernon Diageo Global Supply
Tim Salyers University of California (Davis)
Alan Wardlaw Diageo Global Supply
Brandon Gerhard Schmid Rieger Consultants
Nonkosi Sithole Sedibeng Brewery Pty Ltd
Benjamin Smith Surly Brewing Company Module 2 Passes
Nathan Stephens University of California (Davis)
Wouter Steyn SABMiller PLC Doan Anthony Bellman Beverages Adv. Services
Philippe Taylor Molson Coors Canada George Andrew Campbell Diageo Global Supply
Dan Thomas Heineken UK Ltd Ashok Chokalingam Amrut Distilleries Ltd.
Peter Trapani Sierra Nevada Brewing Co Richard Anthony Cowley Diageo Global Supply
Remon Tromp Heineken Nederland BV James Andrew Geddes Diageo Global Supply
Kome Doris Utulu Guinness Nigeria PLC Nick Kebalo Diageo Canada Inc
Thomas Hendrik Van den Berg Heineken Nederland BV Siphokazi Majozi NCP Alcohols
Fabiano Varella Garcia MillerCoors LLC Tambudzai Makunde African Distillers
Stephen Whitehead Lion Rachel Mark Diageo Global Supply
Arthur Zimmerman University of California (Davis) Sandra Mathews Diageo Global Supply
Donald Zuehlke MillerCoors LLC Samuel Alan Mckibbin Diageo Global Supply
Eoin Mclaughlin Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
William Morrissey Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard
Eoin O'Keeffe Irish Distillers Pernod Ricard

Examiners Report 2013 47

 Callum James Rew Cameronbridge Distillery Kopano Mosweu SABMiller Africa and Asia
Jeremy Ryan Roza Samuel Adams Brewing Co. Peter Mushonga Delta Beverages Ltd
Sam Slaney Joseph Raymond Mwaikasu Tanzania Breweries Ltd
Diane Jane Stuart SWRI Ashley Ndaba Delta Beverages Ltd
Mthulisi Nyoni Delta Beverages Ltd
Patrick Ongom Nile Breweries Ltd
Module 3 Passes Onyewuchi Okere Guinness Nigeria PLC
Emmanuel Onabanjo Guinness Nigeria PLC
Georgina Bell SWRI Zibusiso Siziba Delta Beverages Ltd
George Andrew Campbell Diageo Global Supply Ronald Timbigamba Nile Breweries Ltd
Andrew George Cant Diageo Global Supply Martina Winkelhoferova Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s
Nick Kebalo Diageo Canada Inc Patrick Zulu Zambian Breweries PLC
Mark Lancaster Whyte and Mackay Ltd
Tambudzai Makunde African Distillers
Rachel Mark Diageo Global Supply Module 2 Passes
John McCarthy Adnams & Co.PLC
Aderemi Adewoye Guinness Nigeria PLC
Samuel Alan Mckibbin Diageo Global Supply
Richard Adasom Afesi Guinness Ghana Ltd
Hullec Ndunah African Distillers
Joseph Agbogla Guinness Ghana Ltd
Joanne Louise Reavley Diageo Global Supply
Hung Duong Quoc Vietnam Brewery Ltd
Callum James Rew Cameronbridge Distillery
Scott Hayward Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Craig Wilson Diageo Global Supply
Emmanuel Kealeboga SABMiller Africa and Asia
Hussein Ally Kitilinga Tanzania Breweries Ltd
AWARDED DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING QUALIFICATION Julian Michael Markham Daniel Thwaites PLC
HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES Angelberta Mashingaidze Delta Beverages Ltd
Arno Matthee South African Breweries Ltd
Georgina Bell SWRI Ashir Mori South Sudan Beverages Ltd
George Andrew Campbell Diageo Global Supply James Mulenga Zambian Breweries PLC
Richard Anthony Cowley Diageo Global Supply Chishimba Mumba Zambian Breweries PLC
Dhavall Gandhi Heineken UK Ltd Chisanga Justin Mutale Zambian Breweries PLC
Nick Kebalo Diageo Canada Inc Idowu Oladayiye International Breweries PLC
Mark Lancaster Whyte and Mackay Ltd Isaac Ongora Nile Breweries Ltd
Tambudzai Makunde African Distillers Ikenna Emmanuel Oranusih Guinness Nigeria PLC
Rachel Mark Diageo Global Supply Victor Phiri Delta Beverages Ltd
John McCarthy Adnams & Co.PLC Gareth Brian Price Heineken UK Ltd
Samuel Alan Mckibbin Diageo Global Supply Haig Rusike Delta Beverages Ltd
Joanne Louise Reavley Diageo Global Supply Sreenath S.R. Skol Breweries Ltd
Kevin Swanson Diageo Global Supply Kenneth Jay Saunders Molson Coors Canada
Craig Wilson Diageo Global Supply Eduardo Schubert Bluetongue Brewery Pty Ltd
Bhupesh Sharma Skol Breweries Ltd
David Thurston Heineken UK Ltd
DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING Kristin Wellman Craft Brewers Alliance
Samuel Asiamah Yeboah Accra Brewery Ltd
Module 1 Passes

Module 3 Passes
Petr Bilek Plzensky Prazdroj, a.s
James William Buckley Evan Evans Brewery Geoffrey Keith Davis Lion
Chee Hoong Chim Lion
Bright Chitomfwa Zambian Breweries PLC
Jessica Craig Carlsberg UK Ltd AWARDED DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING
Ikechukwu Ekeleme Consolidated Breweries PLC QUALIFICATION HAVING COMPLETED ALL 3 MODULES
Tichafara Jaya Delta Beverages Ltd
Charles Simon Mkumbo Serengeti Breweries Ltd Geoffrey Keith Davis Lion

48 Institute of Brewing and Distilling

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

Examiners Report 2013 49