REP
PORT FROM
F
THE EXAM
MINERS
S
2010
0

General Certificate and

a Diplomass (in Brewing
g, Distilling and Beveragee Packaging))
as well as Master B
Brewer reports in one han ndy volume.
   

 
 

Board of Examiners and Examinations Centres 2010

 
The Board of Examiners The Fundamentals, General Certificate, Diploma and Master Brewer Examinations were held in the
2010 following worldwide centres: 

D Taylor (Chairman) Australia Adelaide France Strasbourg Norway Oslo

Brisbane
Andrew Barker Papua New Lae
Bundaberg Ghana Accra Guinea
George Bathgate Hobart  
Ian Bearpark Melbourne Guernsey St Peter Port Romania Brasov
Perth WA
Ruth Bromley India Chennai Scotland Aberlour
Sydney Mumbai
Jonathan Brown Edinburgh

Paul Buttrick Barbados St Michael Indonesia Tangerang Seychelles Mahe

Iain Campbell Ireland Cork South Africa Cape Town
Cameroon Douala
Dublin Durban
Robin Cooper
Johannesburg
David Cook Canada Creston Jamaica Kingston Port Elizabeth
Edmonton St Elizabeth
Brian Eaton
Halifax Sri Lanka Colombo
Tobin Eppard London Japan Tokyo
Vancouver St Lucia Vieux Fort
Chris Hughes Kenya Nairobi
Robert Illingworth Tanzania Dar Es Salaam
Denmark Valby Lesotho Maseru
David John Uganda Kampala
Dominica Roseau Malaysia Kuala Lumpur
Robert Kent Singapore USA Davis CA
Robert McCaig Elkton VA
England Alton Mongolia Ulaanbaatar Golden CO
Colin McCrorie Burton on Trent Irwindale CA
Burtonwood Myanmar Yangon Milwaukee WI
Michael Partridge
Leeds Philadelphia PA
Michelle Pizzi N.Ireland Bushmills Trenton OH
London IBD
David Quain London LUC Namibia Windhoek Vietnam Ho Chi Min City
Northampton
Jim Robertson
St Austell Netherlands Wouterwoude Zambia Lusaka
Thomas Shellhammer Sunderland
New Zealand Auckland Zimbabwe Harare 
Ian Smith Tadcaster Christchurch
Jeremy Stead
Fiji Suva  Nigeria Ibadan
Richard Westwood  Lagos

THE STATISTICS

Diploma in Brewing, Beverage Packaging and Distilling, and the Master Brewer Examinations

 
Number of candidates who sat each module 

Exam  Module  2010  2009  2008  Exam  Module  2010  2009  2008 

Diploma in  Module 1  244  206  212  Master Brewer  Module1  6  23  34 

Brewing  Module 2  215  161  166  Existing Syllabus  Module 2  9  25  24 

Module 3  183  134  170  Module 3  16  18  26 

Pass in all modules  106  Module 4  10  19  14 

Diploma in  Module 1  30  22  9     Module 5  14  20  20 

Distilling  Module 2  19  15  14  Pass in all modules  9 

Module 3  17  18  14  Master Brewer  Module1  31 

New Syllabus  Module 2  14 
Pass in all modules  14 
Module 3  2 
Diploma in  Module1  11  9  14 
Module 4  5 
Packaging  Module 2  12  9  0 
Module 5  3 
Module 3  9  0  5 
Pass in all modules  2 
Pass in all modules  11 
 

2           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 

Report from the Chairman of the Board of Examiners
Results for 2010 Examinations
It is most gratifying that candidate numbers registered for the 2010
examinations continue the trend of recent years showing an increase over
the previous year, with an increase in average performance across all of the
IBD exams, compared with 2009.
In total this year, there were 11 new Master Brewers qualifying, with 106
candidates achieving the Diploma in Brewing and 14 the Diploma in
Distilling. Also, for the first time this year, 11 candidates achieved the new
Diploma in Beverage Packaging.
Also 139 candidates obtained the GCB and 51 the GCP in November 2009,
with 117 and 25 passing GCB and GCP respectively in May 2010. In
addition, 27 candidates obtained the General Certificate in Distilling in
November 2009 and a further 86 (including 2 sitting the Molasses option
for the first time) in May 2010.
Finally, a total of 17 candidates passed the Certificate in the Fundamentals
of the Brewing and Packaging of Beer set in November 2009 and May
2010.
Award Winners
I should like to congratulate all candidates who have attained qualification,
especially those achieving distinctions and awards.
In particular, many congratulations to Peter Hammond, (Budweiser Stag
Brewing Company) for achieving the IBD’s highest accolade – the JS
Hough Award, given for outstanding qualification at Master Brewer level.
In addition, I should like to congratulate Stephen Bossu (who attended the
UC Davis extension programme) for being awarded the 2010 JS Ford prize
(Dipl. Brew.) and Elaine Harrison and Darryl McNally (both of Old
Bushmills Distillery Co. Ltd) for attaining jointly the 2010 Diploma in
Distilling Award (awarded by the Worshipful Company of Distillers).
In addition, Stephen Bossu (UC Davis) also received the Crisp Malting
award (for the best paper in 2010 Dipl. Brew. Module 1); Andrew Morgan-
Jones (Lion Nathan, Australia) was awarded the Brewery Engineers
Association award (for the highest result in the Process Technology section
of 2010 Dipl. Brew. Module 3); Shona Glacy (Scottish Whisky Research
Institute) and Schalk Pienaar (Logichem Process Equipment S.A.) jointly
achieved the Simpsons Malt award (for the best paper in 2010 Diploma
in Distilling Module 1); Nikolas Fordham, (Chivas Brothers Ltd) attained
the Gin and Vodka Association prize (for best paper in 2010 Dipl. Distill.
Module 2); Lachlan Paul (South Australian Brewing Co) receives the
Brewery Engineers Association award for the highest score in 2010 Dipl.
Pack. Module 3; Anthony Duke (Heineken (UK) Ltd.) attained the Quinn
Glass prize (for the best result in 2010 Diploma in Packaging Module 1)
and Christopher Quinn (Molson Coors Brewing (UK) Ltd) was awarded the
Hyster prize (for best result in 2010 Diploma in Packaging Module 2).
Finally, congratulations are extended to David Bleitner (Chicago, USA)
who obtained the Worshipful Company of Brewers award for 2009 GCB,
to Bruce Markham (formerly of Labatts) for obtaining the Worshipful
Company of Brewers award for 2009 GCP, and to Alan Tough (Diageo
Global Supply), who received the 2009 GCD Scotch Whisky Association
award.
The 2010 General Certificate awards, as usual, will await the results of the
November round of examinations.
Examiners’ Reports
As now established practice, all the Examiners’ reports are published here
as this special supplement in the Brewer and Distiller International.
However they are also available via the IBD web site, in the Journal (JIB)
or by application to the IBD Examinations Administration team at Clarges
Street.
All potential candidates are strongly encouraged to regard these reports as
essential reading in that they contain descriptions of the ideal content of
answers, sound advice on examination technique and detailed analysis of
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               3
the year’s papers. Also all unsuccessful candidates are recommended to use
the relevant reports in conjunction with their individual feedback forms that
have been sent to help them to recognize syllabus sections they need to
concentrate on for future exams.
I trust that all unsuccessful candidates find this feedback information useful
for planning their future studies.
The reports below from all the examiners summarises overall performance
and I do not intend to duplicate this information.
However, I do wish to note that this year we have awarded the first
Diplomas in Beverage Packaging, with 11 candidates successfully
completing all 3 modules. Now that this new qualification is established, we
are hoping for more candidates to register in the near future.
Also, it is very pleasing to see that the introduction of the new syllabus and
examination format for the Master Brewer qualification has been well
received and a good number of candidates have successfully passed a
number of the revised modules.
M. Brew. candidates are reminded that only the new syllabus will be
examined in June 2011 and that Module 5 (Case Study) is no longer
available, having been now replaced by a Practical Project module.
Another new feature this year saw the first candidates registering for the
Molasses options of both the Diploma in Distilling - Module 1 (modules 2
and 3 are common to all options) and the GCD; I understand that there are
also registrations for the Grape option for the GCD in November 2010. The
increasing interest in the Distilling qualifications other than the Cereal
option is very encouraging.
General comments relating to the written papers for M. Brew. and
Diplomas include the necessity to ensure full understanding of the
instructions within the answer books and the need to answer the requisite
number of questions or sections of questions as clearly indicated in the
question papers and no more! Examiners are instructed to mark questions in
strict sequence order as presented in the answer books, so that questions in
excess of the required number will not be marked. Examiners will NOT
mark all questions and select the highest marks.
In addition, as ever, candidates are urged to concentrate on answering the
precise questions asked and pay particular attention to preparation,
organisation and time management.
Finally, candidates are reminded that the exams are set on the syllabus
contents and so should be sure to cover the full breadth of the syllabus
topics in their preparation and revision.
Pass Marks and Grades
I thought it would be opportune to remind candidates here of the pass marks
set for examinations and the grading structures. It appears, however, that it
may be several years since these were last published and as there is no
secrecy about them, I include the information below.
Contrary to some opinion, the pass marks have always been fixed at a set
standard and are not varied depending on candidates’ results; this is
confirmed by the fact that in 2008, Dipl. Distil. candidates achieved a 100%
pass rate for all 3 Modules.
(a) Diplomas in Brewing and Distilling
Pass mark for all modules = 45%
Pass
Grade A = 75% and over
Grade B = 65 – 74%
Grade C = 55 – 64%
Grade D = 45 – 54%
Fail
Grade E = 35 – 44%
Grade F = 25 – 34%
Grade G = less than 25%
 
 

NB. For Dipl. Brew. Module 3, candidates must achieve a minimum NB. All modules consist of 4 Units; examinations for each unit of all 3
standard of 35% in both Section A – Packaging Technology and in modules consist of one assignment and two written papers (each to be
Section B – Process Technology. This means that in order to achieve the completed in 1 hour) and comprising:
pass mark of 45% overall for Module 3, attaining 35% in either section Short Answer Paper: “short answers” and “multiple choice”, designed
requires a mark of at least 55% in the other section. Failure to achieve the to cover the whole unit syllabus.
minimum standards means the overall mark will be graded at E (or less, Long Answer (Essay) Paper: choice of 1 from 2 questions.
depending on total percentage attained).
Weighting of the marks for each unit is:
(b) Master Brewer (New Syllabus) i Short answers paper = 35%
ii Written answers (1 from 2) = 35%
Pass mark for modules 1 to 4 = 50% iii Assignments = 30%

Pass Candidates do not have to pass all units within a module in order to achieve a
Grade A = 80% and over pass grade for that module; marks achieved for all units within a module are
Grade B = 70 – 79% totalled to determine the grade achieved for that module. However, failure to
Grade C = 60 – 69% submit an assignment for ANY unit will annul the results of that unit from the
Grade D = 50 – 59% total marks for the relevant module and will require the candidate to repeat that
Fail unit assignment AND examination in the following (or subsequent) year, in order
Grade E = 40 – 49% to achieve a pass grade for the module.
Grade F = 30 – 39%  
Grade G = less than 30% Students who have covered a unit standard through recognized prior learning
(RPL) may be exempt from that unit standard. Exemption may be granted
NB: Previously (old syllabus), the grading system was the same as the upon the receipt of a Portfolio of Evidence. Grades for a module including
Diplomas above, but with the change to the new examination format for unit(s) passed by RPL will be based on results achieved by the units taken by
modules 1-4, (comprising two written exams: - Paper 1: “short examination.
answers” and “multiple choice”, 2 hours and worth 100 marks; Paper 2:
“essay-style”, choice of 4 from 6 for 2 hours; to be worth 25 marks (d) General Certificates (Brewing, Beer Packaging and Distilling)
each), this new grading structure has been implemented.   and Fundamentals

Only the new syllabus is available for examination from June 2011 All these qualifications are examined by multiple choice questions, either on-
onwards. line (currently available for GCB and GCP) or by paper exams.

It should be noted that for all modules 1 – 4, candidates must achieve a The pass marks are set at 66% (40 correct answers from 60 questions for GC
minimum standard in both papers; 55% for Paper 1 and 45% for Paper 2. exams; 33 out of 50 for FBPB). Candidates attaining 90% or more achieve a
Failure to achieve these minimum standards means the overall mark will Distinction pass and 80 - 89% achieves a Credit pass.
be graded at E (or less, depending on total percentage attained).

For Module 5 – Project, there are three categories of assessment: Acknowledgements

Distinction = 70 (or above) marks / 100,
Pass = 50 to 69 marks / 100, Again 2011 has been a busy, but productive, year for the IBD Board of
Fail = <50 marks / 100. Examiners and the Examinations Department. As ever, I wish to express my
gratitude to all the examiners and moderators for their continuing hard work
(c) Diploma in Packaging and most valuable contributions to this most important function of the IBD.
Thanks must also go to the unsung heroes of the IBD examination process,
Pass mark for all modules = 50% namely the Clarges Street- based team for all their efforts and support. Jessica
Baldwin, Andrea Williams, Sarah Bartlett and Natalie Michel have all made
Pass major contributions to the organisation and smooth operation of the IBD
Grade A = 80% and over examination system.
Grade B = 70 – 79%
Grade C = 60 – 69% Finally, good luck to all prospective candidates in the pursuit of IBD
Grade D = 50 – 59% qualifications.
Fail
Grade E = 40 – 49%
Grade F = 30 – 39% Dr David G Taylor
Grade G = less than 30% August 2010
 
   

4           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 

The Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Examinations 2010 
Question Papers and Examiners’ Reports
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2010  
Module 1 – Raw Materials and Wort Production
This year was unique in that the examination was available in two formats
‐ the traditional long essay type questions with 5 questions to be
attempted out of a choice of 8 in three hours
‐ the new format with a 2 hour short questions and multiple choice
paper to test the maximum breadth of the syllabus and a 2 hour
long essay type questions with 4 questions to be attempted out of
a choice of 6 to test the depth of knowledge.
As this year was a one off it was decided to use the same questions for both
of the long essay type papers albeit with a restricted choice for the new
format paper and also with some simplification of one of the questions.
Six candidates sat the traditional paper and the pass rate was 100%,
although two of the candidates received a pass after the moderation process.
Thirty one candidates sat the new format paper with 18 candidates passing
which is a pass rate of 58%.
Long essay examinations report.
This is the first year for some time that this examiner has seen the full
complement of papers (having been moderator for the last six years) and I
was surprised at the very wide range in the quality of the papers with some
very good papers but also some that demonstrated that the candidates were
ill prepared for an examination at this level. It is suggested that candidates
with a poor grade should discuss their performance with their mentor and if
they do not have a mentor should certainly seek one out.
On a positive side it was also very apparent that some candidates were
extremely well prepared and in particular the work carried out at the various
training and coaching sessions showed in the quality and style of answer
presentation. A well constructed and presented answer is the most efficient
way of presenting information in the limited time available.
I will repeat the themes of previous examiners reports – read the question,
answer the question being asked not the question you wish had been asked
and be careful with time management. Once again some candidates failed to
answer the number of questions required and as a result lost marks.
Question 1- Old and New – Malting Plant Audit.
Set out a checklist to be used in carrying out an audit of a malting plant
which is due to supply the brewery. Detail the significance of each item
on the list.
This question was attempted by 5 candidates sitting the old format
examination (83%) and of those all passed (100%).
For the new examination format 21 candidates attempted this question
(68%) and of those 13 passed (62%).
There were several exceptional answers which scored very highly. The
question specifically requested for the candidate to set out a checklist to be
used in carrying out an audit and to detail the significance of each of the
items on the list. It was surprising therefore how many candidates failed to
carry out these very clear instructions. In some cases the candidates simply
described the malting process, or provided a sampling and analytical
schedule or even just the finished malt specifications. What was required
was a well structured checklist complete with the justification and
significance for each item.
The list should be comprehensive and cover items such as management
structure, procedures, specifications, document control, training and
records, quality and food safety systems, ISO, HACCP, traceability, internal
audits and reviews, non conforming product, environmental considerations,
health & safety etc. as well as a full audit of the malting plant and process.
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               5
 
 
Question 2 - Old format only – Coloured and Speciality Malts.
Describe the manufacturing processes for various coloured and
speciality malts including the critical process control checks. How may
the various malts be used by the brewer to produce a range of beers?
This question was answered by 3 candidates (50%) with 2 achieving a pass
mark (67%).The quality of answers was disappointing with only one
candidate achieving reasonable mark.
The candidates did not cover a very wide range of malts with most just
being limited to crystal and a couple of the roasted malts. The production
process was often sketchy and sometimes incorrect. It was surprising that
nobody mentioned enzymic malt.
The second half of the question on how the various malts could be used to
produce a range of beers was particularly disappointing with very limited
practical knowledge evident.
Question 3 – Old format/Question 2 – New format– Hop Utilisation and
Aroma Hops.
The recent fluctuations in hop prices have led to renewed interest in
maximizing the alpha acid utilization in the brewery. Describe how this
may be achieved with a cost/benefit analysis of each technique. Discuss
the range of aroma hops available globally and how they may be used
to produce different beer styles.
This question was answered by 3 candidates (50%) sitting the old format
with 2 achieving a pass mark (67%). For the new examination 13
candidates (42%) attempted the question with 8 achieving a pass mark
(62%).
There were a few exceptional answers to this question but on the whole the
standard of answers was disappointing. Many candidates simply listed a
few hop products including very detailed descriptions of their production
process (probably the question they wished had been asked!), with very
little cost/benefit discussion. It was also noticeable that most candidates did
not discuss how the utilisation could be improved in the brewing process by
techniques such as the use of modern boiling systems, modifying the
boiling conditions, the use of antifoam, controlling yeast growth,
minimising foaming and even reducing the bitterness specification of the
final product.
The second part of the question on aroma hops was also very disappointing
with some very short answers with little knowledge. It is true that working
in a large brewing group there may be a limited opportunity to use a range
of aroma hops but for an examination at this level is reasonable for the
candidates to be able to demonstrate knowledge of aroma hop varieties and
how they are used to produce different beer styles. The production of beers
with a range of hop aromas is a boom part of the industry particularly in
craft breweries in the UK and the USA and it is expected that a Master
Brewer should keep abreast of such developments.
Question 4 – Old format/Question 3 – New format– Water Treatment
and Distribution System.
Draw up an outline design brief for the water treatment and
distribution system for a one million hl per year greenfield brewery.
30% of this volume is packaged into kegs the rest is packaged into
returnable bottles. There is a borehole supply available which has a
high mineral salt content but with a maximum extraction rate of 500
m3 per day. There is also an unlimited municipal supply which is soft
water, but is 10 times more expensive than the borehole water.
This question was answered by 1 candidate sitting the old format
examination and they achieve a good pass mark.
For the new examination 10 candidates (32%) attempted the question with
only 2 achieving a pass mark (20%). 
 

This was by far the most unpopular question for both examination formats  
and was also the question with the lowest pass rate by some way. The three
candidates who passed all achieved very good marks showing what was
possible with this question. The quality of the answers to this question
demonstrates a clear weakness in the knowledge and training of many
brewers and this should be urgently addressed.
The question was slightly simplified for the new format examination. Many
candidates simply described how a reverse osmosis plant or an ion
exchange plant worked, with a very limited distribution system diagram. A
large number did not bother to debate the supply options of the borehole
versus the municipal supply and did not calculate the usage rate to check
the capacity of the borehole. One candidate did calculate how much water
would be needed on an annual basis but only included the water that would
be present in the finished product! Another candidate proposed using
untreated borehole water for the returnable bottle washing and tunnel
pasteuriser.
A good answer would have included a calculation to determine the water
volumes required by the brewery including assumptions about seasonality
and peak demand and also the product mix. A debate of the relative supply
and treatment cost of the alternative supplies should have been included and
should also have considered the different requirements for the water used
for different parts of the brewery. The proposed treatment options should
then have been described utilising a simple distribution diagram.
Question 5 – Old format/Question 4 – new format – Extract Recovery
Investigation.
Detail how an investigation should be carried out to determine why
there is a 3% lower than expected extract recovery from dry goods
delivery to the kettle filled prior to boil, for a chosen brewhouse plant.
This question was answered by 5 candidates sitting the old format (83%)
with all achieving a pass mark (100%).
For the new examination format 28 candidates attempted the question
(90%) with 17 achieving a pass mark (61%).
This was a very popular question and there were some very good well
structured answers. There was however several poor answers often being
answered as the last question attempted and some demonstrated poor time
management. Some candidates covered losses later in the process than the
kettle filling stage which was outside the scope of the question, and many
ignored losses during the dry goods handling.
A good answer would have covered the methodology to be employed in
carrying out the investigation described how a multiple skilled team could
be set up and using techniques such as PDCA, DMAIC, root cause analysis,
fishbone diagrams, 5 why, etc. A checklist of potential loss areas should
then have been provided with a summary of how each item would be
checked. A system of monitoring any improvement achieved should also
have been described including how any improvements would be sustained.
Question 6 - Old Format/Question – 5 - new format – Trial Programme
– Reducing Evaporation Rate.
Produce a trial programme to reduce the evaporation rate during wort
boiling from 8% down to 4% without adversely affecting the quality
and the character of the beer. How else can the energy usage be
reduced at the wort boiling stage?
This question was attempted by 4 candidates sitting the old format (67%)
with 2 (50%) achieving a pass mark.
For the new format 21 candidates (68%) attempted the question but only 8
(38%) achieved a passmark.A lot of candidates lost marks by not producing
a trial programme as the question asked but simply discussing the merits of
reducing the evaporation rate including new technology.
The second half of the question about reducing the energy usage was also
poorly answered and was ignored completely by some candidates.
The answer should have set out how the trials would be carried out with a
plan to assess the impact of the change probably in a progressive way
without risking trade issues. The assessment and disposal of the trial
product would also have been covered. The likely impacts would also be
6           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
listed with the plan to assess them The second half of the question should
have covered new technology and developments but also good practice to
minimise energy usage.
Question 7 – Old format/Question 6 – new format – Cleaning Regimes
and Personnel Safety.
Specify the cleaning regimes and procedures to be used in the
brewhouse including the plant, chemicals and equipment required.
Detail the personnel safety aspects which need to be considered.
This question was attempted by 4 candidates (67%) sitting the old format
with all achieving a passmark (100%).
For the new format 29 candidates (94%) attempted this question with 25
achieving a passmark (86%) achieving a passmark.
This question was well answered overall with some very good answers.
One common fault was to concentrate solely on the CIP aspects and to
ignore the dry goods cleaning and general housekeeping.
Question 8 – Old format- Effluent and Co-product Streams.
Set out in the form of a table the effluent and co-product streams in a
brewhouse and discuss how each may be reduced.
This question was attempted by 4 candidates (67%) with 2 candidates
(50%) achieving a passmark.
There was a very wide range of answers to this question with one very
good answer and one very poor answer which looked to be the last
question attempted with limited time available.
This was an opportunity with the tabular format to score some good marks
in a relatively short time and to particularly demonstrate some practical
knowledge. The main failing was to have a very limited list particularly of
the effluent sources.
Short Questions and Multiple Choice Paper
Barley - Only the question on the purpose of storing grains at high
temperature was answered poorly by a majority of candidates.
Maltings - Too few candidates were able to identify the purpose of
analysing samples of malt and the reasons for sampling bulk grains, in
accordance with standard operation procedures.
Adjuncts - Few candidates were able to describe a method of measuring
the potential extract yield of adjuncts.
Hops - In general the hop questions were answered well by a majority of
candidates but too few were able to select the two conditions necessary for
satisfactory cultivation of hop plants.
Water - Hardly any candidates were able to match the ionic composition
of a brewing water to the style of beer it is best suited for brewing.
Brewhouse Operations - The candidates that answered these questions
competently were in a minority, especially the cost difference between two
malts of a dissimilar specification.
Brewhouse Design and Layout - Candidates struggled to find the right
answer to the question of the minimum number of brewhouse vessels
required to achieve the stated throughput as well as matching the grist
analysis to the type of mash separation equipment.
Plant Cleaning - Too many candidates selected a microbiological
standard that was far too high for brewhouse plant and too few could
identify actions that might restore copper evaporation back to 100%.
Quality and Troubleshooting - Most of the questions in this section were
badly answered by the majority of candidates.
Legal - The candidates that correctly answered the question about the
Kyoto Treaty were in a minority.
Ian Smith
August 2010
 

MASTER BREWER EXAMINATION 2010  
Module 2 – Fermentation and Beer Processing
OLD SYLLABUS
Nine candidates submitted scripts for the paper and seven gained pass
grades, a pass rate of 77.8 %, which is higher than last year. There was 1
excellent paper at Grade A, one at grade B, 2 at grade C and 3 at grade D.
There was 1 paper at grade E and 1 paper at grade F. The better candidates
demonstrated both widespread knowledge of the whole of the syllabus
areas, and depth of knowledge and experience in them.
There were some areas of examination technique that let candidates down.
Candidates need only write the question number at the start of their
answers. There is no benefit or score attracted by copying out the question
from the examination paper. Time management was clearly a problem for
some candidates with 4 fairly complete answers presented, and then the
fifth was barely started. There were some questions that candidates had
either not read properly or had misunderstood the direction required,
resulting in irrelevant information being presented. There were examples of
answers quoting brewhouse materials or practice which is out of scope for
this paper
Several questions were ideally answered by including a well presented
labelled diagram or graph, or a table of information and comments. This is a
simple way of presenting large amounts of information without taking too
much time. Diagrams ranged from very good to very poor. The best used at
least half a side of paper, were drawn with a ruler and were neatly annotated
with appropriate labels. The worst were very small, untidy and without
adequate labelling.
Question 1 – Yeast Propagation and Pitching.
Starting at the laboratory stage, describe a yeast propagation process
appropriate to achieve sufficient yeast to pitch 1000 hl of lager or ale
wort. Describe briefly the design of a yeast propagation tank suitable
for the final stage of the process before full scale fermentation. Outline
routine procedures used to ensure a consistent supply of high quality
pitching yeast for all fermentations.
Six candidates attempted this with 5 passing (83.3 %). There were 2 good
answers.
The first part of the question, worth 40% of the marks, required a detailed
description of the media, volumes, temperatures and other parameters
associated with the propagation process starting from a stock culture (e.g.
slope) in the laboratory. There should also have been reference to the
specifications and testing procedures necessary to ensure the process is
adequately monitored and controlled at each stage.
The second part, worth 35% of the marks, was best answered with a
diagram and supporting notes covering the vessel itself (material of
construction, shape and size, services, etc.) and the necessary fittings and
instrumentation (pressure/vacuum relief, spray ball or jet, temperature,
pressure sensors etc.). Candidates who used only a diagram or text usually
scored fewer marks as some key points were missed.
The final part of the question required a listing of best practice procedures
for yeast management for cropping, storage and selection processes.
Question 2 – Consistency of Beer Flavour.
A brewery produces a significant volume of a global lager brand.
Recently, reports from headquarters have indicated a flavour shift
from the ideal profile. In respect of the process from wort collection
through to bright beer tank, describe the possible causes of flavour
changes and the nature of the change due to each cause. What actions
should be implemented to ensure the product is returned to the ideal
flavour profile?
Four candidates attempted this question with 3 passing (75 %). There was
one excellent and one very good answer.
The main body of the question, worth 80% of the marks, required
demonstration of the candidates’ knowledge of the factors affecting the
variations in the flavour profile of a lager beer. Parameters such as wort  tests are available to determine the level of stability achieved?
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               7
composition (oxygen and zinc levels within the scope of this paper), pitching
rate, yeast health, fermentation and conditioning process parameters, process
additions, etc. should all have been listed together with and the effects of
variations in them on the components of the standard flavour profile. Off-
flavours and taints from microbiological infection and from other sources
were worthy of a brief mention but some candidates over-played these to the
detriment of discussion of standard flavours.
The final part of the question covered the corrective actions required to
correct the flavour shift. These can be managed by a troubleshooting
approach, auditing and data gathering in the process, and restoring the
parameters identified as being potentially at fault in the preceding discussion
to their desired levels.
Question 3 – Microbiological Control.
Discuss the possible causes and effects of microbiological contamination
of beer in the fermentation and beer processing areas of a brewery.
Outline the procedures and techniques that can be employed to
investigate the source of the contamination. Briefly describe the
measures to be adopted to eliminate the infection.
Eight candidates attempted this question with 7 passing (87.5 %) and one
good answer.
Although there was a good pass rate, possibly indicating the practical
experiences of many in this area, the level of detail required was often
lacking in answers.
In the first part of the question, worth 50% of the marks, the possible causes
of infection include inadequate CIP and sterilisation, poor plant design and
maintenance, bad practices in soak bath management, environmental hygiene,
infected yeast and other additions. Most candidates mentioned off-flavours as
one main effect of infection, but at this level a description of the off-flavours
associated with specific organisms (e.g. phenolic from some wild yeasts) is
required to score better marks.
The investigation process, worth 25% of the marks, can be managed by a
troubleshooting approach, and should include a significant microbiological
sampling and testing regime. Better answers indicated where samples were
taken from and what tests were applied to them. Physical observation of
operational procedures, especially CIP processes, should also have been
mentioned.
The final part of the answer should have covered immediate remedial actions,
such as special or more frequent cleans, calibration checks, etc., and then
followed up by corrective actions to address shortcomings identified in the
areas identified in the first part.
Question 4 – Product Safety in Fermentation and Processing
Describe how the potential risks to product safety may be assessed for
the fermentation and beer processing areas. What risks are present to
product safety in the fermentation and beer processing areas, and how
may they be controlled to ensure the product is safe for consumers?
Eight candidates attempted this question with only 4 passing (50 %). There
was one good answer.
The process of assessing the risks to product safety was worth half of the
marks. There were varying descriptions of how the HACCP process,
including the pre-requisite procedures, is applied to the fermentation and beer
processing areas, with one model answer and several covering most of the
relevant points.
The second part of the question was less well answered, with few scripts
covering the relevant pre-requisites (e.g. pest control, supplier management
for filter aids and other materials, etc.), and directly controlled risk such as
detergent contamination, coolant ingress across heat exchangers, over-
addition or mis-addition of materials, etc.
Question 5 – Control of Colloidal Haze Stability.
Describe the processes and procedures that can be implemented in
fermentation and beer processing to ensure colloidal haze stability in
bottled or canned beer with a declared shelf life of twelve months. What
 
 

Six candidates attemp

mpted this questionn with 4 passing (66.7 %). There were   shou
uld include perioodic inspection off spray balls and d jets, manual detergent
no good
g answers. and sterilant analysess, and audit of cleeaning cycles.

The first part of thhe question, woorth 75% of the marks, requirred a Qu
uestion 7- Design and Control of Filter Room
desccription of what ccolloidal hazes arre made of and ho
ow they are preveented
or delayed
d in formaation. The main culprit is clearlly protein-polyphhenol Connstruct a proposal for capital eequipment for a new filter rooom (to
mateerial, but carbohyydrate and heavyy metal chelated protein
p should alsso be repllace all existing plant) for a breewery producingg 3 million hl peer year
coveered. Process m methods includding good yeasst and fermenttation of lager
l in bottle and can with a 12 month sh helf life. Draw a flow
man nagement, adequaate cold-storage temperature and d time and dissoolved diag
gram to illustratte the recommenndations proposed for the installlation,
oxyg gen minimisationn all play a part. Process
P aids and additions are alsoo key and
d describe and justify
j the prinncipal items of plant and equiipment
factoors in reducing oone or more com mponents of hazee-forming materiaal, so chosen, stating all assumptions. Discuss the options o availab
ble for
PVP PP, silica hydrogels and xerogels, proteolytic enzy ymes, etc., shoulld all controlling this op peration to ennsure the beer meets its anaalytical
havee been coveredd. Weaker answ wers concentrateed only on prootein- speccification right first
f time in brigh
ght beer tank.
polyyphenol haze, meentioned only one or two procedu ures or techniquees, or
faileed to include thee detail of how and why the vaarious proceduress and No candidates
c attemp
pted this questionn.
proccess aids worked.
Queestion 8 - Optimiisation of Utilitiees and Effluent
Mosst of the candidaates covered the other part of thee question in a ffairly
supeerficial manner, sscoring a few maarks for mentioniing a test but wit
ithout Describe the steps that can be takenn to minimize th
he usage of utilitiies and
disp
playing knowledgge of how it was carried
c out, what was measured orr how the amount of efflueent produced in the fermentatioon and beer proccessing
valid
d it was in determ
mining haze-form
ming potential. as of a brewery
area y. Discuss the pootential impact on product quaality of
the measures identified above.
Queestion 6 - CIP in Bright Beer
Eigh
ht candidates atte
empted this quesstion with only 4 passing (50 %).. There
With the aid of suittable diagrams, describe
d the design and operatioon of were no good answerrs.
a Clleaning in Place (CIP) plant suiitable for use in the bright beer area
of a brewery that haas no operationaal staff routinely working in it. Thee best way to addrress the questionn as evident in som me answers was to start
Desccribe the microb biological tests and
a other checkss that may be useed to by listing
l the utilities used in the proocess, how they are
a used and givee some
monnitor the effectivveness of the CIPP process. ideaa of the relative importance
i of eaach. Very few can ndidates recognissed the
signnificant usage of electricity
e for refr
frigeration and so
o missed out on possible
Fivee candidates attem
mpted this questiion with only 2 passing
p (40%). T
There
opportunities for red duction (improvee insulation, phasse the cooling deemand,
was one good answerr.
incrrease fermentation and cold storaage temperatures, use more or diifferent
proccess aids to alllow higher CT temperatures or shorter times,, etc.).
Thiss was a variation on a standard quuestion on CIP, sp
pecifically lookinng for
Redducing lighting intensity and fitting ng time switches has
h only a minor effect,
a system to conduct ccleans in an autom
mated area..
thouugh the signal it sends out to staf aff can be worthw while. Many canddidates
sugg gested collecting g carbon dioxide off fermentation ns. Whilst this may
m be
The first part of the question, worth 75% 7 of the markks, was best addreessed
enviironmentally sou und and may saave some money y, it actually inccreases
by means
m of a diagraam illustrating thee typical features of a either a recoovery
elecctricity, compressed air and steaam usage, and does not address any
or a single-use CIP system, the selecction of which should also have been
poteential improveme ents in actually ussing the gas in th
he process (e.g. thhrough
justiified in the text. Dependent on the type of sysstem selected, deesign
swittching to acid cle eans to preserve tthe gas in CT an nd BBT, mendingg leaks,
featuures to show inccluded concentraated and dilute detergent
d and sterrilant
minnimising top presssures, balancing gas venting from m one tank fillingg while
tank
ks, feed water aand rinse water tanks, mains, valves, pumps, heat
presssurising another one emptying, ettc.).
exchhangers, along with flow, presssure, temperatu ure and conducttivity
probbes. The operatiion part of thee question was looking for a brief
Thee minimisation ofo water usage was generally answered betterr, with
desccription of typiccal cleaning cyccles including rinses, r detergent and
scheemes for reusing CIP rinse waterss, reducing CIP frrequency, reducinng cold
steriilant washes wiith details of appropriate
a timees, temperatures and
and hot water chase es, deaerated watter purges, fitting
g triggers to hosses and
chemmical selection aand concentratioons. Most answeers had fairly lim mited
empploying dry methoods of cleaning alll being covered.
diag
grams and supporrting text, with innsufficient detail about the operattional
paraameters and contrrol aspects of the system.
Thee impact on quality of the abovee measures, worth the final 25% of the
marrks, should have covered microbioological risks, haaze stability and flavour
f
The second part of the answer should have included detaills of
channges due to tempe
erature variation or dissolved oxygen pick up.
micrrobiological testss of rinse water, plant
p and subsequuent product. Thee use
of trraditional and raapid micro methoods should have been described.. The  
term
ms “plating” or “ATP test” do not display su ufficient evidencce of  
knowwledge at this leevel. Calibrationn and verification n of control systtems, Jereemy Stead
visu
ual inspection of tthe plant, should have
h been discussed. . Other checkks Auggust 2010 
 
 
 
MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   veryy good papers returned. The papeer covered the whole
w syllabus and most
canddidates clearly were
w prepared suufficiently to answer questions accross a
reassonable spread off topics. Howeveer, lack of detailled knowledge inn some
mentation an
Module 2 – Ferm nd Beer Proce
essing areaas limited the marrks for some.
W SYLLABUS
NEW S
Thiss year was the fiirst for the new style
s syllabus and examination. T There Queestions on yeast and fermentationn/conditioning prrocesses were generally
weree 2 papers, the first consisting of multiple choiice and short annswer welll answered, whilsst filtration materrials and processees were weak toppics for
quesstions and the second being a moodified version off the traditional eessay man
ny candidates.
stylee paper. Fourteenn candidates subm mitted scripts for the two papers. E
Eight
gain
ned pass grades, a pass rate of 57..1%. There were 2 candidates at ggrade Futuure candidates sh hould note that if a short-answer question askss for 3
B, 2 at grade C and 4 at grade D. Fiive of the six un nsuccessful candiidates piecces of informationn, there is no poin
int submitting 4 or
o 5 suggestions as
a only
scorred a grade E, witth the final one att grade G. the first 3 will be marked.

Paper 2 – Essay Style

Papeer 1 – Multiple C
Choice and Short Answer
A Question
ns
Theere were 2 very good
g papers, 2 ggood papers, 2 diisappointing papeers and
the rest were clustered around the mminimum standard d. The better canddidates
Ten candidates (71.4%) achieved the required standard
d in this paper, wiith 2.
monstrated both widespread
dem w knowleledge of the whole of the syllabus areas,

8           Institu
8 ute of Brewiing and Distiilling Examinners Report 2
2010  
 

and depth of knowledge and experience in them. There were some areas of  
examination technique that let candidates down. Candidates need only write
the question number at the start of their answers. There is no benefit or
score attracted by copying out the question from the examination paper.
Time management was clearly a problem for some candidates with 3 fairly
complete answers presented, and then the fourth was barely started. There
were some questions that candidates had either not read properly or had
misunderstood the direction required, resulting in irrelevant information
being presented. Several questions were ideally answered by including a
well presented labelled diagram or graph, or a table of information and
comments. This is a simple way of presenting large amounts of information
without taking too much time. Diagrams ranged from very good to very
poor. The best used at least half a side of paper, were drawn with a ruler
and were neatly annotated with appropriate labels. The worst were very
small, untidy and without adequate labelling. It is worth noting for future
candidates that they are recommended to practice drawing diagrams of all
of the main plant items (vessels, filters etc.) as part of their preparation.
Candidates should also note that information supplied in one answer can be
referred to in another answer without repeating the information in full.
Question 1 – Yeast Propagation and Pitching.
Starting at the laboratory stage, describe a yeast propagation process
appropriate to achieve sufficient yeast to pitch 1000 hl of lager or ale
wort. Describe briefly the design of a yeast propagation tank suitable
for the final stage of the process before full scale fermentation.
This was the most popular question. Twelve candidates attempted it with 9
achieving standard (75 %). There were 3 excellent and 2 good answers.
The first part of the question, worth 55% of the marks, required a detailed
description of the media, volumes, temperatures and other parameters
associated with the propagation process starting from a stock culture (e.g.
slope) in the laboratory. There should also have been reference to the
specifications and testing procedures necessary to ensure the process is
adequately monitored and controlled at each stage. Weaker answers either
lacked some of the detail required or had impractical processes (e.g.
excessive dilution stages, yeast counts too low at top-up).
The second part was best answered with a diagram and supporting notes
covering the vessel itself (material of construction, shape and size, services,
etc.) and the necessary fittings and instrumentation (pressure/vacuum relief,
spray ball or jet, temperature, pressure sensors etc.). Candidates who used
only a diagram or text usually scored fewer marks as some key points were
missed.
Question 2 – Consistency of Beer Flavour.
A brewery produces a significant volume of a global lager brand.
Recently, reports from headquarters have indicated a flavour shift
from the ideal profile. In respect of the process from wort collection
through to bright beer tank, describe the possible causes of flavour
changes and the nature of the change due to each cause.
Ten candidates attempted this question with 6 achieving standard (60%).
There was one excellent and one good answer.
The answer required demonstration of the candidates’ knowledge of the
factors affecting the variations in the standard flavour profile of a lager
beer. Parameters such as wort composition (oxygen and zinc levels within
the scope of this paper), pitching rate, yeast health, fermentation and
conditioning process parameters, process additions, etc. should all have
been listed together with and the effects of variations in them on the
components of the standard flavour profile. Off-flavours and taints from
microbiological infection and from other sources were worthy of a brief
mention but some candidates over-played these to the detriment of
discussion of standard flavours.
Question 3 – Control of Colloidal Haze Stability.
Describe the processes and procedures that can be implemented in
fermentation and beer processing to ensure colloidal haze stability in
bottled or canned beer with a declared shelf life of twelve months.
What tests are available to determine the level of stability achieved?
Eleven candidates attempted this question with 7 achieving standard
(63.6%), with only 1 good answer.
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               9
The first part of the question, worth 75% of the marks, required a description
of what colloidal hazes are made of and how they are prevented or delayed in
formation. The main culprit is clearly protein-polyphenol material, but
carbohydrate and heavy metal chelated protein should also be covered.
Process methods including good yeast and fermentation management,
adequate cold-storage temperature and time and dissolved oxygen
minimisation all play a part. Process aids and additions are also key factors in
reducing one or more components of haze-forming material, so PVPP, silica
hydrogels and xerogels, proteolytic enzymes, etc., should all have been
covered.
Weaker answers concentrated only on protein-polyphenol haze, mentioned
only one or two procedures or techniques, or failed to include the detail of
how and why the various procedures and process aids worked.
Most candidates covered the remaining part of the question in a fairly
superficial manner, scoring a few marks for mentioning a test but without
displaying knowledge of how it was carried out, what was measured or how
valid it was in determining haze-forming potential.
Question 4 - CIP in Bright Beer
With the aid of suitable diagrams, describe the design and operation of a
Cleaning in Place (CIP) plant suitable for use in the bright beer area of a
brewery that has no operational staff routinely working in it. Describe
the microbiological tests and other checks that may be used to monitor
the effectiveness of the CIP process.
Nine candidates attempted this question with 4 achieving standard (44.4%).
There were no good answers.
The first part of the question, worth 75% of the marks, was best addressed by
means of a diagram illustrating the typical features of a either a recovery or a
single-use CIP system, the selection of which should also have been justified
in the text. Dependent on the type of system selected, design features to show
included concentrated and dilute detergent and sterilant tanks, water and rinse
water tanks, mains, valves, pumps, heat exchangers, along with flow,
pressure, temperature and conductivity probes. The operation part of the
question was looking for a brief description of typical cleaning cycles
including rinses, detergent and sterilant washes with details of appropriate
times, temperatures and chemical selection and concentrations. Most answers
had fairly limited diagrams and supporting text, with insufficient detail about
the operational parameters and control aspects of the system.
The second part of the answer should have included details of
microbiological tests of rinse water, plant and subsequent product. The use of
traditional and rapid micro methods should have been described. The terms
“plating” or “ATP test” do not display sufficient evidence of knowledge at
this level. Calibration and verification of control systems, visual inspection of
the plant, should have been discussed. . Other checks should include periodic
inspection of spray balls and jets, manual detergent and sterilant analyses,
and audit of cleaning cycles.
Question 5- Design and Control of Filter Room
Construct a proposal for capital equipment for a new filter room (to
replace all existing plant) for a brewery producing 3 million hl per year
of lager in bottle and can with a 12 month shelf life. Draw a flow
diagram to illustrate the recommendations proposed for the installation,
and describe and justify the principal items of plant and equipment
chosen, stating all assumptions.
Only 3 candidates attempted this question with 2 achieving standard (66.7%),
both with excellent answers.
The logical start to answering this question is to calculate the flow rate of the
plant required stating assumptions of manned hours, planned down time,
dilution ratio, etc. This then leads to the ability to size the filter(s), buffer
tanks etc.
The diagram should show all major plant items and the product and process
aid flows. The selection and sizing of the major items should be justified in
the text on the basis of process need, quality factors, capital and revenue cost
(including labour, energy and maintenance costs), etc. There is no single
correct solution, and marks are awarded for the relevance of the factors in
relation to the scenario presented by the candidate.  
 
 

Queestion 6 - Optimiisation of Utilitiees and Effluent   timee switches has onnly a minor effecct, though the siggnal it sends out to
t staff
can be worthwhile. Many
M candidates suggested colleccting carbon dioxxide off
Desccribe the steps tthat can be takeen to minimize the usage of utiilities mentations. Whilsst this may be envvironmentally sou
ferm und and may save some
and the amount off effluent produ uced in the fermmentation and beer monney, it actually in
ncreases electricitty, compressed aiir and steam usagge, and
proccessing areas of a brewery. doess not address anyy potential improv
ovements in actuaally using the gass in the
proccess (e.g. through
h switching to accid cleans to presserve the gas in CT
C and
Disccuss the potenttial impact on product qualitty of the meassures BBT T, mending leakss, minimising topp pressures, balan ncing gas venting from
iden
ntified above. one tank filling while
w pressurisinng another one emptying, etc.)). The
minnimisation of wateer usage was genenerally answered better,
b with schem
mes for
mpted this question with only 3 achieving stanndard
Ten candidates attem reussing CIP rinse waters,
w reducing CIP frequency, reducing cold and a hot
%). There were noo good answers.
(30% wateer chases, deaerated water purgess, fitting triggers to
t hoses and empploying
morre dry methods off cleaning all beinng covered.
The best way to adddress the question as evident in some s answers w was to
startt by listing the uttilities used in thee process, how th
hey are used andd give Thee impact on quality of the abovee measures, worth the final 25% of the
som
me idea of the relative importaance of each. Very V few candi dates marrks, should have covered microbioological risks, haaze stability and flavour
f
reco
ognised the signnificant usage off electricity for refrigeration annd so channges due to tempe
erature variation or dissolved oxygen pick up.
misssed out on posssible opportunitiees for reduction (improve insulaation,  
phasse the cooling demand, increase fermentation n and cold stoorage
temp peratures, use m more or differennt process aids to allow higherr CT Jereemy Stead
temp peratures or shortter times, etc.). Reducing
R lighting intensity and fittiing Auggust 2010
 
 
 
MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   worrst answered quesstion. This was noot a question abou
ut designing a linne from
scraatch but about ho
ow to upgrade a line. Whilst som me element of siizing is
need ded in the answe
er, candidates whho restricted themmselves to this did
d not
Module 3 – Pack
kaging and Beer
B Dispense scorre well. Good an nswers included the sizing elem ment but also desscribed
OLD
D SYLLABUS S permmanent line chang
ges and the provis
ision of change paarts.

In 2010,
2 18 (16 old syllabus and 2 new
n syllabus) pap
pers were receiveed of Queestion 2 (Questio
on 2 New Syllabuus) – Dispense Quality
Q Assurancce
whicch 7 (39%) achiieved the pass sttandard. This rep
presents a signifficant
declline on last year’ss performance. Wriite a specificatio
on for dispense of draught beerr including disp
pensing
andd in-glass parameters. How does the operation and maintenancee of the
Passs marks were seenn at grades A, B, and D. disp
pense equipmen nt ensure thatt these specifications can bee met
consistently?
The decrease in passs rate was disapppointing and the overall standardd was
also down on last yeear with only a couple
c of candidaates achieving grreater Thiss was a modera ately popular quuestion with 10 0 (63%) of candidates
n a D grade. The mentioned best scripts, howeverr, were of a very high
than answ
wering. Of those answering 4 (40%
%) achieved the pass
p standard
standard and answered well across all the attempteed questions. Seeveral
otheer candidates prodduced very goodd answers to somee of the questionns but Theere was the poten ntial in this queestion to pick upp marks for detaailing a
lack
ked consistency. senssible dispense specification with tolerances and some explanationn of the
interplay of parameters such as speeed, temperature and head heighht. The
Apaart from one unpoopular (but extrem mely well answerred) question no other secoond part of the quuestion, which caarried slightly moore marks that thhe first,
quesstions stood out eeither in popularitty or in the pass rate
r which was arround allowed for good candidates to dissplay practical knowledge
k of thee daily
40%
%. operration of a dispen
nse system in an ooutlet.

The best candidates were able to clearly demonstratee their knowledgee and Queestion 3 – Budgets
direcct experience off a topic area. To
T score a good pass this standaard is
needded across a range of answers. Forr either a keg filling or a cask fillling operation describe
d the creaation of
a zero based annu ual budget andd give details of o the elements to be
Gennerally, examinattion technique was good with h only a couplle of inclluded.
canddidates appearingg to run out of time through poo or planning againn this
yearr. It is almost allways the case that
t five evenly spread answerss will Thiss was the least po
opular question w
with only 1 (6%) candidate answeering. It
achiieve a better overrall result than all
a the effort beinng focussed in tw
wo or wass however, answe ered very well byy that candidate with
w an A grade for the
threee answers. Therre was some eviidence of candid dates not readingg the quesstion being attain
ned.
quesstion properly oor not focussingg answers on th he question askeed as
exemmplifies by the innclusion of large amounts
a of irrelev
vant material. Thiss question gave the opportunity too discuss both thee make-up of an annual
budget and then to demonstrate expperience by giving suitable detaail with
Lack k of detail in sccripts, typified by
b answers contaaining only sweeeping com
mmentary on partiicular facets of pplant or process which
w can have a direct
geneeralities, lead to very few markss being scored. For
F example it iss not impact on packagingg costs.
suffi
ficient at this too use adherencee to a SOP as a solution to poor
perfformance in a pacckaging plant witthout detailing what
w is in the SOP
P and Queestion 4 (Questio
on 3 New Syllabuus)– Environmen
ntal
whyy it is in there.
Whhat are the envirronmental issuess involved in eitther the keg fillling or
Queestion 1 (Questioon 1 New Syllabu
us) – Plant Desig
gn the cask filling off beer? What ssteps can be ta aken to minimize the
environmental impa act of the chosenn filling operatio
on?
an line which cu
A ca urrently producees 400,000 hl perr year of 500 ml cans
worrking two x 8 hoours shifts, five days per week isi to be upgradeed to Thiss was the most popular question w
with 15 (94%) of candidates answ
wering.
prodduce an addition
nal 250,000 hl peer year of 330 mll cans. Of those
t answering 6 (40%) achievedd the pass standard

Thee cans are packaaged into both tray and shrink k and fully encllosed Goood answers to thiis question gave several examplees of the environnmental
cartton secondary p packaging.Describe the changess to the plant w
which impact in a range off categories (physsical state, noise etc.). Top markss could
will be necessary. Sttate any assump
ptions made. be achieved
a by a broad understandinng of the issues notn only directlyy in the
plan
nt but also on a wider
w scale. Pooorer answers were much more resstricted
Thiss was the third least popular question
q with only 9 (56%) off the and for instance only
y considered liquiid waste 
cand
didates answeringg of whom only 3 (33%) achieved a pass making itt the

10           Insti
1 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 
  

Queestion 5 – Processs Control   Commplaints of mic crobiologically ccontaminated bottled beer aree being
receeived from reta ail outlets. Desccribe the investtigation processs to be
Detaail a final produ
uct specification for either keg orr cask beer. Desccribe carrried out to dettermine the cauuse of contamiination. Describ be how
the process controls in place in thee packaging pla ant which assuree the poteential causes cou
uld be remedied.
d. Assume the brright beer receivved into
al product specifi
fina fication is consisttently achieved. the packaging plantt conforms to speecification.

Thiss was the secondd least popular quuestion with only

y 8 (50%) candiidates Thiss was the second most popular question with 13 1 (81%) of canndidates
answ
wering. Of those aanswering 3 (38%
%) achieved the pass
p standard. answ
wering. Of those answering 5 (38%
%) achieved the pass
p standard

The key to a good annswer in this queestion was to focu us on process conntrols A good
g response to
o this question w would describe the data collectiion and
ratheer the inclusion oof non-relevant innformation. Good
d answers identiffied a evalluation processe es involved in tracking down n the source of the
broaad range of speccific controls andd could relate th hese directly to their conttamination and detail the availablele resources to aid
d the investigatioon. This
impaact on product. Poorer answers spent too much tim me on peripheral isssues wouuld be followed up with a few exam mples of causes with
w equal attentiion paid
suchh as HACCP or m maintenance. to thhe remedies. Poorer answers inccluded only skettchy information on the
inveestigation processs, only detailed a couple of possible causes or sppent too
Queestion 6 (Questioon 4 New Syllabu
us) – Traceability mucch time on brew whouse and ferm mentation derived infection which was
speccifically excluded
d.
Wha at traceability iinformation shoould be collecteed on a small p pack
pack kaging line? D Describe how th he information could be use d in Queestion 8 (Questio
on 6 New Syllabuus) – Pasteurizattion
conjjunction with otther information n systems to tracce product which
h has
alreeady been shipp ped to customeers when a fau ult with a primmary What are the altern
natives to tunnell pasteurization for the microbioological
pack kaging material is notified by a supplier.
s stab
bilization of sm
mall pack beer?? Describe the implications off these
metthods on packagiing plant and prrocess.
Thiss was a moderaately popular quuestion with 11 (69%) of candiidates
answ
wering. Of those aanswering 4 (36%
%) achieved the pass
p standard Thiss was the third most popular qquestion with 12 (75%) of canndidates
answ
wering. Of those answering 5 (42%
%) achieved the pass
p standard
Therre are many soources of inform mation which canc be used too aid
traceeability. Good aanswers includedd the data availaable from a rangge of The main alternative es expected were plate pasteurizattion and sterile fiiltration
supppliers of materiaals. The variouss codes applied in a plant andd any assoociated with the necessary
n clean hhandling into package. The core answer
conccerns related to thhis (e.g. mixing of product throug
gh the line) weree also invoolved the attentio
on to detail arounnd the filler and marks were gained for
discussed and then tthe information collected in the onward supply cchain disccussion of sterile beer tanks, matterials standards and handling, operator
o
coulld also be mentiooned in relation to the second partt of the question.. The proccedures and detail of the stabilizatition technique.
abiliity to trace utilitties and cleans was
w also mention ned in good answ wers.  
Poorrer answers focusssed on date codees applied in the plant
p and did not stray  
far from
f this core datta. Jon Brown
gust 2010 
Aug
Queestion 7 (Questioon 5 New Syllabu
us) – Microbiological Control
 
 
 
MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   resp
ponse was requestted the performannce deteriorated.

The “longer” SAQs formed a signifi ficant part of thee paper and weree either
Module 3 – Pack
kaging and Beer
B Dispense
e answwered reasonably well or on occasion complletely left unanswered
NEW
W SYLLABUS S indicating that this pa
art of the syllabuss had not been coovered by the canndidate.
Given the above com mment that this ppaper was and wiill be designed too cover
otal of two candiddates attempted thhe two examinatio
A to ons. the whole syllabus it will not be ppossible to scoree well without thhe full
breaadth of knowledge detailed in the ssyllabus.
Paper 1: Multiple C
Choice Questionss (MCQ) & Shorrt Answer Questtions
(SAQ) per 2: Long Answ
Pap wer Questions

The mixture of multiiple choice and shhort answer quesstions was designned to ng answer paper is combined with
The report for the lon h the old paper reeport as
coveer the syllabus wiith a range of deppths and difficulties. the comments are co ommon to both paapers and candid dates will be best served
by viewing
v the overa
all picture for thiss type of paper.
The best candidate achieved 53 ouut of 100 markss whilst the we akest
achiieved 44
Jon Brown
wered better thann the SAQs but where more than oone
The MCQs were answ gust 2010
Aug
 
 
 
MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   Queestion 1 – Cost Control
C

Iden
ntify the main items that shhould be consid dered in determ mining
Module 4 – Centtral Function
ns stan
ndard costs for brewing and bbottling beer in n 500ml glass. Give
OLD
D SYLLABUS S exam
mples of how th he cost for eachh item could be derived. Descriibe the
conttrol processes that
t need to bee in place to ensure the prod duction
Oveerall, a pleasing rresult for the finnal examination of
o the old syllabuus of process is tracked against
a the standdard.
Moddule 4. All 10 caandidates passedd and 3 B grades were awarded. As a
com
mplete change froom previous years, finance wass well answeredd but For the first time, 4 candidates atteempted the finan nce question andd all 4
prod
duct quality and safety less welll so. Air and fridge systems were passsed, one of them with an inspirinng 17/20. The best answers coveered all
undeerstood but experrience of the widder management and efficiency isssues aspeects of productio
on costing includding fixed, variaable and semi variable
v
was not displayed.  costts. Candidates were
w generally weeak on systems an nd procedures to ensure
budgets were accurattely tracked and iinvestigated if larrge variances occuurred.

Instiitute of Brew
wing and Disstilling Exam iners Reportt 2010               11 
 
 

Queestion 2 – Refrigeration   As ini previous years, project manageement was attemp pted by most canddidates.
Justtifications were well
w understood and answered but b most were weakw on
For a brewery witth a centralised d refrigeration system, show oon a own nership transfer frrom the project teeam to the user deepartment. Perfoormance
gram the main ccomponents with
diag h typical refrigeerants, temperattures trialls and the tech hnical aspects oof handover disscussed but thee wider
and pressures. How w can efficiencyy be assessed forr the overall syystem man nagement skill of successful take uup was missing.
and describe how thhe critical itemss of plant affect efficient runnin
ng? If
perfformance was declining what coould be the posssible causes and how Queestion 6 – Compr
ressed Air
coulld the problems be rectified?
Describe, using diagrams,
d two types of air compressor an nd the
Reassonable answers were provided with
w some good an nnotated diagramms but adv
vantages and disadvantages of eeach for brewery operation. Hoow can
geneerally light on deescription. Somee candidates did not
n mention the bbasic costts for compressed air generationn and distribution be minimized??
Coefficient of Perforrmance (COP) callculation as a meaasure of efficienccy.
Only 3 candidates attempted
a this quuestion and it waas poorly answerred.
Queestion 3 – Water Useage Diaggrams lacked da ata on pressures and descriptionss of operation were
w
  poor. There was litttle discussion on controls for efficient
e running or
Desccribe the waterr supply system m for a brewery y and outline wwhich ntion to site leakss.
atten
trea
atments would b be appropriate for brewing, pllant cleaning, stteam
 
raising and general cleaning. If a 1 million
m hl per yeear brewery requuires
Queestion 7 – Safety
8 hll of water to b brew and packaage 1 hl of beerr, what would be a
reallistic target figu
ure to set at the start of a wa ater usage reducction
Whhat factors shouldd be considered for a brewery Safety Policy? What
W are
exerrcise? How migh ht the reduction be achieved and d how might efflluent
the responsibilities for senior managers, miiddle managerrs and
costts be affected?
indiividuals? Descriibe appropriate controls and methods
m to ensu
ure safe
worrking for contracctors and safe acccess for visitorss.
Mosst candidates attemmpted this questiion and generally
y marks were betw ween
50%
% and 75%. Goodd points brought out were CIP op ptimisation and taargets
Mosst candidates answered this questiion and good lev vels of competenccy were
of 3-4
3 for water ratiio. Some candidates over emph hasised one partiicular
show wn. Responsibillities were well understood. Some candidates faailed to
saving area at the exppense of a broadeer picture.
disccuss permit system
ms for contractorrs and other overr emphasised to COSHH
C
reguulations. Againn knowledge oof techniques was w demonstrated over
Queestion 4 – Processs Gases
man nagement experience and responsibibility.
Desccribe, with a lab
belled diagram, the principal uses
u of process ggases
Queestion 8 – Product Recall and Inv
nvestigation
with
hin a brewery in ncluding a smalll pack and a la
arge pack operaation.
Howw can gas qualitty be ensured and
a what proceddures can be pu ut in
If there
t had been a number of ccomplaints abou ut an off flavouur in a
placce to eliminatee process gasess as a cause of product qu uality
brewwery’s packagedd beer, describe in detail
com
mplaints? What factors determ mine whether it i is economicaal to
a)
a an action plan
p to maintainn the supply of beer
b in the shorrt term
reco
over CO2 from b brewing and packkaging?
and
b)
b a systematiic investigation tto identify the so
ource of the prob
blem.
Agaain some very ggood diagrams but lacking dettailed descriptioon of
Notte that the problem does not apppear at the tim me of packaging but is
proccedures to ensurre product qualiity. The techniical aspects of CO2
reco
ognizable within
n one week of pacckaging.
reco
overy were well covered but the environmental impact
i and econnomic
discussion was weakk.
Surpprisingly in a brewing exam, oonly half the can ndidates attemptted this
quesstion and it was poorly
p answered. There was little mention of a sysstematic
Queestion 5 – Capitaal Projects
apprroach to accurateely identifying the
he problem and little emphasis on pulling
a team together. So ome candidates im umed the likely problem
mmediately assu p
Whhat factors would d be considered in the justification for the followwing
areaa and only dealt with the consequuences of tacklinng that issue. Soome did
capiital projects?
not check trade sam mples. In geneeral the long terrm options weree better
a)
a Fill height detection equipm
ment for a bottliing or can line.
conssidered than the immediate shortt term problem of o isolation and damage
d
b)
b Effluent Trreatment Plant.
limiitation.
c)
c Additional fermenting vesssels.
For a project to inttegrate a new laabeller into a bo ottling line, desccribe
methods and proceedures to ensurre transfer of ownership
o from
m the
projject team to the ppackaging department. Ian Bearpark
Auggust 2010
 
 
 
 
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
MA ATION 2010   conttaminated product – 8 marks) ssaw marks from m 4 to a very goodg 7.
Queestion 27 (Projectt life cycle – 10 m
marks) saw markss from a disappoinnting 2
to an
a excellent near model answer 99. Finally question 30 (Constrainnts and
Module 4 – R
Resource Ma
anagement and
a Regulattory influ
uences on short and medium prooduction and pacckaging schedulinng – 6
Com
mpliance marrks) saw marks from a dreadful 1 tto a good 5. Cleaarly a candidate can lose
NEW
W SYLLABUS
S a lo
ot of marks with h these questionns if not truly competent and prroperly
preppared.
otal of five candiddates attempted thhe two examinatio
A to ons.
In general
g areas of safety,
s maintenance and finance were answered
quality, m
Pap Choice Questionss (MCQ) & Shorrt Answer Questtions
per 1: Multiple C strongly. Finance is pleasing
p if somewwhat surprising as
a no candidate chhose to
(SAQ) answwer the long answ
wer question in Paaper 2 (see later)..

The mixture of multiiple choice and shhort answer questtions were designned to Somme aspects of the
e environmental area of the syllabus appeared weaker
w
coveer the syllabus with a range of o depths and difficulties.
d The best alon
ng with the suppply chain, worldd class manufactturing and inforrmation
cand
didate achieved 669 out of 100 marks
m whilst the weakest achieveed 42 hnology.  
tech
Twoo candidates answ
wered 10 of the 133 MCQs correctly y – one only mannaged  
7 co
orrect answers. TThe “longer” SA AQs allowed a litttle more depth tto be
 
expllored. Question 16 (Accident innvestigation - 5 marks) saw m marks
rang
ging from 3 to verry good 4s. Questtion 20 (Customeer complaint of  

12           Insti
1 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 

Paper 2: Long Answer Questions  
Question 1 – Packaging Material Reduction.
Discuss the pressures to reduce the quantity of material used in the
packaging of bottle and can products in the last 15 to 20 years,
explaining in detail the sources of these pressures. Use examples to
illustrate the answer.
Four candidates chose to answer this question with marks (out of 25)
ranging from a disappointing 6 to a good 16.
The sources of pressure should have included as a minimum: legislation,
market forces, the consumer and cost. The examiner expected these areas to
be developed – for example packaging waste regulations, landfill tax,
sustainability, corporate social responsibility, environmental awareness,
recycling, competition, a whole range of cost pressures etc. Clearly these
areas will differ for different countries and different stages in supply chain
development across the world.
Examples of changes in packaging materials that could have illustrated
candidates’ answers include: can light weighting (bodies and ends), glass
light weighting, card and cardboard reduction, the rise of PET and
laminates, reductions in the thicknesses and uses of films, stretch and
shrink-wraps, Hi-cone etc.
Question 2 – Health and Safety.
Explain the terms “prevention” and “mitigation” in relation to health
and safety. Give three examples of each. How and why are risks often
quantified? Explain the benefits of doing this when considering
occupational safety hazards.
This question was attempted by four candidates with marks ranging from a
poor 9 to an excellent near model answer 22 marks. The other two
candidates were awarded a very good 18 marks each.
Health and Safety management is rightly recognised as an area of high
competence for most candidates sitting the Master Brewer examination.
This competence was again apparent in three of the submissions this year.
Explanations of the terms “prevention” and “mitigation” were generally
well handled. Similarly the examples used for illustrative purposes were
broadly satisfactory although one candidate confused his / her examples and
was patently not clear enough about the important difference in the terms.
The quantification of risk appears to be well understood and used routinely
in everyday operations. The better answers explained how “severity” and
“likelihood” are each given a score with the product producing an overall
weighting for the particular risk. This then leads to the construction of an
overall risk grid which, in turn, allows the appropriate targeting of
preventative actions, mitigation measures, training, financial and other
resources.
Question 3 - HACCP
Discuss the implications of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) for product safety, plant labelling, staff training and
operational procedures.
All five candidates attempted this question with marks ranging from 13 to
16. The examiner was disappointed not to see top quality answer in what is
generally recognised as a field of high competence.
Introductory explanations of HACCP were generally good with better
contributions including the usual seven steps in the HACCP process.
However, discussions of the implications for the four areas were of highly
variable quality. Product safety was least well handled with most candidates
simply using the risk of “glass in bottle" as the only example necessary for
a complete answer. Clearly this example together with brief descriptions of
appropriate prevention and mitigation measures is good but the examiner
was seeking further examples throughout the process.
Plant labelling was dealt with much better with descriptions of site plans
showing locations of CCPs with individual plant items then being clearly
labelled with a description of the CCP, acceptable limits, responsibility for
monitoring and taking action. Graphs showing performance are often
displayed in the immediate area The better answers on staff training drew
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               13
the distinction between awareness and competence training, the former being
directed at all staff whilst specific competence training is targeted at the key
members of staff who are responsible for the particular CCP
All candidates recognised the need to build HACCP requirements into
operational procedures together with critical limits, roles and responsibilities,
monitoring requirements etc. The better answer briefly explained the vital
importance of operators and technicians being directly involved in the
specific HACCP analysis affecting how they work.
Question 4- Cost Control.
Describe areas of discretionary expenditure within a fixed cost budget.
Explain how discretionary expenditure may be used to maintain a profit
forecast. What are the risks of such an approach?
No candidate chose this question. It is likely to reappear in a future exam!
 
Question 5:
Describe the key features of a typical brewery supply chain. Discuss
options for effective communications between the principal elements.
This question was answered by three candidates with one poor answer (9
marks), one at 15 and one good answer (18 marks). The better answers (with
examples) described supply chains from the ordering of raw materials,
through manufacture, to warehousing and staged distribution to the ultimate
destination. Both product and information flows were included.
Options for effective communications were less well handled with exchanges
of information being described but few examples of how this is, or might be,
done. The examiner had anticipated particular mention of the widespread use
of EDI (electronic data interchange) to compliment traditional meetings,
phone calls etc.
Question 6:
Explain the principles and key features of two of the following
maintenance performance improvement initiatives: Reliability Centred
Maintenance (RCM); Total Productive Maintenance (TPM); Workplace
Organisation (5S). For the two chosen initiatives, in what circumstances
would it be appropriate to adopt each of them?
Four candidates attempted this question with generally good answers. Marks
ranged from 13 to a very good 18. Two candidates chose to explain RCM and
5S, one RCM and TPM and one TPM and 5S.
The principles and key features of all three maintenance performance
improvement initiatives were generally well explained indicating a good level
of understanding. The examiner would have liked to see much more on the
cost implications of adopting such initiatives in the short, medium and long
term. In addition the importance of senior management commitment (time
and financial resources), issues with creating time for the necessary training
and how to sustain such initiatives could all have been developed more fully.
All the candidates suggested rightly that these initiatives often coincide with
the wish to change the company culture or behaviour. A whole range of
circumstances in which they might be adopted were suggested. Without
aligning examples to specific initiatives here these included: the introduction
of team working (and the elimination of the “them and us” or “we operate,
you fix” mentality); the drive for autonomous maintenance; a move to multi-
skilling; low line efficiencies or poorly performing items of plant; the drive to
eliminate all forms of waste including lost time; the desire for a cleaner, tidier
workplace.
The elimination of large quantities of redundant or out of date spares was
included as an example but the implications of doing this were not developed.
If spares are bought on a revenue account (and then held at zero value) this
may not be a problem. However, at this level of exam a candidate should
know that spares (especially high value strategic items) are often held on the
balance sheet and, unless the redundant or out of date spares are already
written down to zero value, a reduction in their value necessitates a write-off
provision which generally has to come from a revenue account which is often
difficult to secure no matter how desirable the exercise.
Robin Cooper
August 2010  
 
 

MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   enviironment. In add dition to listing ththe utility and baasic plant provisiion the
answwer needed to ad ddress the projecct management aspects
a of the quuestion
including cost evalu uations, integrattion with the prroduction requireements
Module 5 – Case
e Study stateed in assumptio ons and how it would fit with h any company stated
OLD
D SYLLABUS S commmunity impact policy.
p Lastly therre was an expecttation that the canndidate
shou uld be able to illlustrate knowledgge of new developments particullarly in
Thiss year 14 candidaates sat the paper and 7 passed (50 0%),which is dow
wn on wasste water treatme ent such as thee use of anaerob bic digestion to create
the 65%
6 pass rate lasst year. 4 candidaates chose questio
on 1 and none of them commbustible gas wh hich can be useed for either direct boiler supplyy or a
achiieved the pass leevel, 10 candidaates chose questiion 2 and 7 of them commbined heat and power (CHP) instaallation.
achiieved a pass.
Queestion 2.
Thiss year’s marks were varied and I would like to con ngratulate the thrree A
grad
ded candidates, yyour scripts weree a pleasure to mark
m and not onlyy did Statting all assump
ptions, detail thhe grist calculattion and the reevenue
they
y show a high degree of know wledge they clearly illustrated good bud
dget for the prod
duction for a 5%% ABV lager and a 4% ABV alee from
exammination techniquue, reading the quuestion and plann
ning the answer. raw
w materials to bright beer tank, tto be produced in a 1M HL brewwery

Mosst likely this will be my last year asa an examiner having

h now comppleted Thiss question was very
v well answerred by candidates who had appeaared to
15 years
y so I would llike to take this opportunity
o to maake the same pleaa as I spen
nd time reading the
t question and planning the ansswer. Grist calcuulations
did in my first reportt, read the questiion and take timee to plan your ansswer. need
ded to include hop
h requirementss and clear tabullated recipe derivvations
Agaain this year we hhave had a signifficant number off candidates who have with
h accurate form mulae quickly ggained marks. Whilst W not absolutely
not answered the qquestion asked soo have been un nable to illustratee the neceessary, good scripts included refeerence to and callculation of adjunnct and
knowwledge to gain a pass mark. I am m convinced that several more oof the colo
oured malt compo onents as well.
canddidates who sat m module 5 this yeear could and wo ould have reachedd the
passs standard if theyy had only answered the question n. Whether you are a Revvenue budget derivations were var aried but the quesstion was lookingg for a
teacher, trainer, menttor or prospectivee candidate reading this report I w
would cleaar matrix of cost to
t define a standaard product cost of each beer typee at the
impllore you to take note of this com mment as it has brrought down so m many brig
ght beer tank. ThisT needed to include materiials, consumablees and
goodd scripts over thee years and continnues to do so. overrheads and have a logical allocatioon in the productiion process.

Queestion 1. Finaally I would likee to thank you fofor taking time to read this ratheer brief
repoort and any otherss you may have rread over the yeaars. I would also like to
Desccribe the planniing, design, sizin
ng and layout forr the utilities suppply, than
nk the IBD for allowing
a me to bbe involved with such a hugely taalented
distrribution and w
waste water treaatment plant to o service a 1M M HL grouup of people who o have made up the Master Brew wer candidates ovver the
brewwery. In your aanswer include liikely capital cosst structures, en nergy last 15 years. Many of you I have gott to know personally and you are a great
saviing innovations and any envirronmental beneefit or impact your dit to our industry
cred y so best of luck in your continueed education and chosen
chossen plant may haave. careeers.

Thiss question was loooking for the canndidate to illustratte an understandinng of

mod dern utilities equuipment provisionn and reflect on how
h choice and deesign Jim Robertson
of th
hat equipment woould impact on thhe cost, efficiency y and surroundingg   Julyy 2010
 
 
 
MA
ASTER BREWER EXAMINA
ATION 2010   2) In all thrree projects, obse
servations were made
m on the plaant that
brought potentially easyy rectification annd improvementt. This
showed that getting the rright people involved in processses can
Module 5 – Diss
sertation bring imp provement withoout resorting to too
t much speciallisation
NEW
W SYLLABUS S and defined responsibility..

Threee dissertations w
were submitted. Two
T were of good
d Pass standard annd Here are examples
e from eaach dissertation:
the third
t of Distinctioon standard a) Reepair of a worn ddeflector valve resulted in no un--milled
grain
ns being mashed w with a 1-2% increease in extract.
The dissertation topiccs were: b) Attention to seettings on a centrifuge
c signifficantly
eased the solids off waste yeast.
incre
1) Spent yeastt disposal optimissation c) Blocked
B tubes inn a wort boiler reduced efficienncy of
2)
2 Optimisatioon of extract recovvery from a mash
h filter boilin
ng.
3)
3 Improvement of flavour stabbility of lager beer in warm tropicaal
climate connditions. 3) An area for candidates to concentrate on is explaininng the
‘Purpose’ of the project, aand setting carefful ‘Success Criteeria’ at
These were all relevaant to the breweriies where the projjects took place, aand the start and
a measuring suuccess or otherw wise against thesee at the
weree supported by seenior line manageers in the organisaation. Positive ressults end. The e ‘Purpose’ is simmple way to say why
w the project iss being
weree obtained in eachh. done and d can always be answered ...‘in order to.....’ ‘S Success
Criteria’ must be set thatt are well defineed and measurable. For
The submissions followed the syllabuus guidelines. In some
s areas there w
was example, ‘increasing the rrevenue from thee sale of waste yeeast’ is
a disscrepancy as to w
which informationn goes in which seection, giving a not a goood criteria, but ‘inncreasing the rev
venue derived forr waste
som
metimes disjointedd flow. One candiidate exceeded the word count yeast fromm £15,000 to £300,000 per annum’, is simply definned and
requ
uired and care muust be taken not too do this in futuree years. measurable.

The overall standard was high, and in my opinion achieves the objectivve of Candidate es will find thatt being clear on the ‘purpose’ ofo their
makking this section oof the Master Brewer examination more relevant annd project an nd the ‘success criteria’ they seet will help givve their
tang
gible for the candiidate and their orrganisation. report bettter structure and clarity.

neral comments annd advice to futurre Candidates, Sp

Gen ponsors and Menttors 4) Although not defined in thhe guidelines, alll projects would benefit
from a shhort ‘executive ssummary’ with th he basic purposee, main
1) Could canndidates please puut their examinatiion number on thheir results an
nd outcome contaained in a half paage summary at thhe start
dissertatioon? of the pro
oject.

14           Insti
1 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 

5) Candidates should think carefully about the content of their  
report and avoid getting into too lengthy discussion or drawn
into other – albeit relevant – topics which are outside the scope
of the project. One dissertation was significantly longer than it
need have been if the report had been confined to the ‘core’
project. Dissertations which exceed the word-count guidelines
may be penalised in future years.
6) Two of the projects were well confined and brewery specific.
The third was a more technologically based project working at
the forefront of up to date technology and knowledge. Both
types of projects are very acceptable, but care must be taken to
have clearly defined limits on scope. The project on improving
the flavour stability of lager beer was an excellent piece of work,
but was probably difficult to manage in a 12 week time frame.
7) Dissertations should be written in the third person – avoiding ‘I’
and ‘we’.   
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               15
8) The use of photographs to show specific aspects of the project was
very effective in one submission. Please be aware that only
entirely relevant photographs will bring extra marks.
9) When submitting the dissertation in Word, candidates must ensure
that the formatting is correct for printing. One paper submitted
had a few formatting problems which was detrimental to the
overall standard of the report. This was not penalised on this
occasion, but may be in future years.
10) I would like to thank the sponsoring organisations and candidates
for being the first to take the new Module 5 and congratulate them
on very good work.
Paul Buttrick
July 2010
 

DIPLOMA IN BREWING EXAMINATION 2010
Module 1 –Materials and Wort
The examination was sat by 244 candidates, compared with 209 candidates
in 2009 and 212 in candidates in 2008. The pass rate for the examination
this year was 65%. This compares with a pass rate in 2009 of 74% and
2008 of 63%.
The grade distribution was as follows (2009 in parenthesis):
A: 1 % (4%)
B: 14% (12%)
C: 22% (30%)
D: 28% (30%)
E: 18% (13%)
F: 12% (8%)
G: 5% (3%)
Once again the examiners request that you number each question that you
have answered clearly in the examination booklet as well as marking on the
front of the examination booklet what questions were attempted, for
example, Q1, Q2 etc, in this way sections or parts of answers will not get
mixed up. It is of utmost importance for the candidate to clearly mark on
the first page of the examination booklet the questions, in order, that they
have answered. Time management is a very important part of doing well on
the exam and once again it is pleasing to note that almost all of the
candidates answered six questions. The skill of thinking quickly and
concisely is not just important for examinations, it is a skill required for all
aspects of life. Furthermore, the ability to communicate knowledge to
others is essential. The very best candidates showed an ability to write
quickly, legibly and clearly, using diagrams that were accurately labelled to
enhance their answers. There continues to be candidates that have difficulty
in writing legibly or coherently which does make it much more difficult for
the examiner to correctly assess their paper. In the case of those candidates
that were close to pass/fail this inability may have been an impediment to
receiving a passing grade.
Question 1
Describe the structure of the barley grain and the functional
importance of its main physiological features. [10] Explain the role of
gibberellins in the malting process. [10]
This question was attempted by 233 candidates (95%) with 80% achieving
the pass mark. Part A was generally better answered than Part B. In Part A,
the examiner was looking for a good diagram of the barley kernel with all
of the major physiological features identified (embryo, scutellum,
endosperm, aleurone, husk, proximal, distal ends). Top marks were
achieved by those that included more detail such as micropylar region,
pericarp and testa, coleoptiles, coleorhizae, crushed endosperm, awn). A
written description of the importance of each of the major components
(including percentage of kernel, function, composition etc) rounded out Part
A. Many made the incorrect simplification that endosperm cell walls are
comprised solely of beta glucans. In Part B the examiner received some
wonderful papers on the biochemistry of the enzymes stimulated in the
barley kernel by gibberellic acid (GA), but that was not the question. The
examiner was looking for the location of the gibberellins in the barley
kernel and that these plant hormones are stimulated in steeping when the
embryonic food reserve is depleted to produce GA. The GA is transported
through the vascular tissue along with water entering the micropylar region
and moving to the distal end from the dorsal side of the barley kernel. GA
stimulates the aleurone layer to produce and release a series of enzymes that
break down the reserve material of the starch endosperm. Only a brief list
and description of the enzymes and their actions was required. Many
candidates had a misconception that abrasion was essential for GA addition.
Question 2
In the production of malt for brewing, describe the process parameters
that can be controlled during TWO of the following stages, and explain
the problems that arise if these parameters are not properly regulated:
a) Steeping [10]
b) Germination [10]
c) Kilning [10]
16           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
This question was attempted by 228 candidates (93%), with 60% achieving
the pass mark. Where answers fell short it was generally in relation to a lack
of linkage between the effect of perturbations in control of the processes and
their effects on final malt quality and/or effect on the brewing process. Often
the paper had insufficient focus on process control, instead the candidate
focused on process biochemistry.
Once again some candidate’s wasted valuable time by describing all three
processes; when it was clearly stated describe two. Paramount to the answer
was defining what the aim of the discussed malting process was. It would
appear that many of the candidates did not clearly understand the difference
between steeping and germination.
In steeping, the purpose is to hydrate the barley kernel through a series of wet
and dry periods. It is important to control the temperature, time of the wet and
dry periods, aeration during wet cycles and CO2 removal during dry cycles. A
top paper then detailed the effects each of these parameters had on the malting
and brewing process.
Germination is the next step in the malting process during which the aim is
modification of the barley kernel. Time, temperature, air flow, humidification
and turning of the barley are essential control parameters. Again a top paper
then detailed the effects each of these parameters had on the malting and
brewing process.
Kilning is the final process that fixes the malt for use by the brewer as well as
developing the characteristic colour and flavour. Temperature, air flow, time
and relative humidity are all important control parameters for this phase of
malting. A top paper described the phases of kilning (free drying, forced
drying and curing) and the conditions of each.
Question 3
What are the quality specifications of malt for brewing EITHER a
premium ale OR a premium lager beer? [10] Explain how these
specification parameters can influence the brewing process and final beer
quality. [10]
This question, attempted by 216 candidates (88%) with 71% achieving the
pass mark, was generally answered well. Candidates should take care to
answer the question which was asked, once again many candidates wrote on
the quality specifications for both ale and a lager, again wasting valuable
time. Other candidates listed specifications but did not identify whether or not
they were for ale or lager. In Part A, a chart was by the far the most effective
way to answer.
The examiner was looking for at least the following malt parameters:
• Varietal Purity
• Moisture
• Extract
• Colour
• Modification (as defined by Kolbach Index, Fine Coarse
difference, Friability, cold water extract)
• Enzyme activity
• Beta-glucan content
• FAN Content
• Fermentability
In Part B the candidate was to draw a correlation between the parameters and
the brewing process. For instance, lower protein generally translates into
higher extract, possible low beer foam and poor fermentability. Friability is
linked with the energy required to mill the malt, and beta-glucans are
intimately involved in wort and beer filtration as well as beer physical
stability and haze. Modification is related to a variety of issues including
physical stability, fermentability, strength etc.
Question 4
Describe the quality requirements of a potable water supply for brewing.
[10] Explain the significance of calcium levels in brewing liquor to both
the brewing process and finished beer quality. [10]
This question was attempted by 210 candidates (86%), with 75% achieving
the pass mark. The examiner was looking for potable water must be free from
 

taste and odour, be clear, colourless and free from turbidity, the pH should  
be slightly acidic or near neutral, it should be free of heavy metal and
pesticide contamination, free from organic contamination and be should be
microbiologically sound. A top paper also went into more detail about
water microbiology, describing the allowable levels for coliforms and their
impact. In the second part of the question, the role calcium plays allowed
the candidate to display their knowledge of the entire brewing process as
calcium plays a role throughout the brewing process. Calcium has a major
role in water hardness, reduces pH in mashing, stabilises mash enzymes
(e.g. α-amylase), can increase soluble protein and extract recovery and in
fermentation plays a role in increased FAN. It also can increase the rate of
run-off, reduce extraction of tannins and silicates, reduce isomerization of
alpha acids, improve protein precipitation and reduce colour and pH during
the boil. It is important for yeast as it improves yeast flocculation. It can
also improve beer stability by removing oxalic acids as calcium oxalate and
enhance foam stability.
Question 5
Describe the key objectives of mashing in terms of process
biochemistry. [10] Discuss the critical factors which influence the
mashing process.[10]
This question was attempted by 221 candidates (80%) with 34% achieving
the pass mark. This question was poorly answered as once again many
candidates did not read the question. The examiner was looking for a list of
the key biochemical processes taking place during mashing not a detailed
description of the process of starch gelatinization and enzymatic
degradation. This is only one of many biochemical processes talking place
in the mash tun. The examiner was confounded by the overall lack of
understanding of the processes taking place in this key part of the brewing
process. Besides the degradation/conversion of starch, protein is degraded
to FAN or other wanted forms, soluble sugars and proteins are leached from
grist, there is the enzymatic degradation of insoluble unwanted grist
materials (keep wort viscosity manageable), wort pH is decreased, there are
a number of chemical interactions of wort components, lipoxygenase
activity is talking place, there is some colour development and finally there
is the enzymatic inactivation at end of mashing. A top paper listed all of
these activities with a brief description of the process. The second part of
the question was better answered by the candidates. Many factors influence
the mashing process including temperature (affects speed of enzyme
activity, rate of enzyme inactivation, rate of starch gelatinization), mash
homogeneity, mash thickness, strike temperature, time, pH (both direct
impact on rate of enzyme catalysed reactions and also indirect effects such
as release of enzymes from bound forms), extract composition, agitation,
mash composition adjunct, process/equipment, addition of exogenous
enzymes and diffusion of substances throughout mash also affects
fermentability and extract. A top paper provided details on the condition
and the positive or negative effects on mashing.
Question 6
Discuss the relevance of brewhouse pipework, vessels and ancillary
plant design to hygiene management. Your answer should include
evaluation of the risks involved [8] Outline the range and main
constituents of commercially available cleaning agents and explain how
their action can be evaluated. [6] Describe typical cleaning regimes
which are operated in a brewhouse to ensure hygiene control. [6]
This question was the second least popular question, attempted by only 110
candidates (45%) with 59% achieving the pass mark. It was perhaps
surprising that some candidates scored least well on the practical part of the
question, where typical brewhouse cleaning regimes were described.
The system should be constructed of stainless steel to withstand cleaning
temperatures and pressures, should have sanitary welds, sanitary
connections, and vessels should have CIP systems in place with proper
drainage. Pipework should have no dead ends, minimized bends, sanitary
welds, little variation in line diameter and proper slope. Equipment CIP
systems should have complete vessel coverage and the system should be
designed to allow for a CIP cycle within a timeframe of the brew centre
timing.
The detailed requirements of a cleaning agent are high solubility in water,
good cleaning power with regard to dirt, high wetting power, little
redeposition of dirt, no foam, easily rinsed, no reaction with salts in water,
not corrosive to equipment, easy and safe to use, low cost and little
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               17
pollution of the waste water. The major cleaning agent in the brewhouse is
caustic soda (wetting agents added) and to validate it effectiveness operators
can visually check, utilize pH measurement, or turbidity measurement of the
return solution. Acid cleaners for scale removal can be used and the
validation methods are similar for those used to validate caustic cleaning. In
terms of sanitizers, chlorine based are best used in the brewhouse and
validation methods include micro testing (swab, plating) and the use of a
bioluminescence detection method.
A typical cleaning regime is a balance of efficiency versus cost. The first step
should be a pre-rinse step to eliminate loose soil and to wet the equipment.
The next step would be a caustic step for removal of organic material
followed by a rinse to eliminate any residual caustic or soil. The third step
could be an acid rinse to eliminate beer stone (scale) or a sanitation step to
sterilize the lines with a chlorine based sanitizer followed by another rinse
step.
In general terms, for the mash tun, cereal cooker, whirlpool, lines, wort
cooler, and the kettle a rinse should be done after each use, plus a full
brewhouse wash with 2 - 5% caustic (at 70 - 90C) at least weekly (depending
on product mix), with a more frequent kettle and cooler clean (depending on
design).Sanitizer steps should be done on kettle out lines through the wort
cooler and to the fermenter.
 
Question 7
Describe the main criteria which determine selection of hops for use in
brewing. [8] Outline the range of hop products available to the brewer.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of TWO products as
compared with brewing using whole hops. [12]
This question was attempted by 182 candidates (75%) with 48% achieving
the pass mark. This question was often answered with insufficient detail. It
was often one of the last answers attempted, which perhaps explains the lack
of detail in most answers. Many candidates did not recognize what the
examiner was looking for (again please read the question carefully) and
described the criteria for using hops or using different hop products. Some
candidates answered the question detailing peripheral information about hop
composition or aroma characteristics but did not address the quality criteria
used for hop selection. The examiner was looking for the selection criteria for
raw hops and those criteria are: variety, crop purity, alpha content, dryness,
colour and gloss, cone shape, lupulin content, aroma and presence of disease
damage. Very few candidates mentioned anything at all about factors other
than alpha acids and aroma when selecting hops The second part of the
question was answered marginally better, however, where the question says
'outline the range of hop products' many answers simply gave lists with no
explanation or further qualification. Several candidates listed the advantages
and disadvantages of whole hops as one of their hop products when the
question clearly stated that whole hops were to be the comparison product for
the two chosen.
Question 8
Describe the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM). [10]
Describe the procedures involved in the practical application of a Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program.[10]
This was least attempted question with only 50 candidates (20%) choosing to
answer. This question also had the lowest pass rate at 28% achieving the pass
mark. In general this question was very poorly answered, with long rambling
answers as to the candidates view on quality processes and nothing to do with
either TQM or HAACP. The key components of TQM are: employee
investment, problem solving teams and statistical methods. First of all and
most important is that management must be involved and lead the TQM
process. Quality can and must be managed. Everyone has a customer and is a
supplier and every employee is responsible for quality. Some of the
fundamentals include:
1. Processes, not people, are the problem.
2. Problems must be prevented, not just fixed.
3. Quality must be measured.
4. Quality improvements must be continuous.
5. The quality standard is defect free.
6. Goals are based on requirements, not negotiated.
7. Life cycle costs, not front end costs.
8. Must plan and organize for quality improvement. 
 
 

For implementation aand application of a HAACP program the followingg   5. Establish corrective actionn to be taken when monitoring inndicates
must be considered: a fault at a CCP. Procedur ures must be written detailing the course
of action to be taken whenn the CCP is foun nd to be ‘out of coontrol’.
1. Prepare a flow diagram of the process, iden ntifying the hazardds These pro ocedures detail th the steps to be taken to bring thhe CCP
associatedd with each stage. Define the process. The process must back into control.
be accurattely and sequentiially defined from m start to finish, an
and 6. Establish record keepingg for HACCP; for f documentatioon and
this is ofteen done in the forrm of a flow diag
gram. Identify all on that HACCP aanalysis is effectiv
verificatio ve.
hazards annd list the controll measures. Assesss the risk of hazaard 7. Establish an audit proceduure for verificatiion. More detaileed tests
occurring. Once the potenntial hazards havee been identified tthe should be e used periodicaally to ensure th he effectiveness of the
associatedd risk of each shoould be quantifiedd, usually into higgh, HACCP system
s in relationn to the stated pro
otocols and any hazards
h
medium aand low categoriees. not includded in the initial hhazard analysis.
2. Specify thhe control or prevventative measurees at each stage. 8. Review th he HACCP systeem each time theere is any changee to the
3. Identify thhe Critical Controol Points (CCP) for
f these hazards. process. Any
A changes in thhe production or handling processses that
Prepare a ‘decision tree’ foor action. Controll of hazards is may affec ct the HACCP syystem must be ideentified and apprropriate
exercised at CCPs. modificattions to the HACC CP system implem mented.
4. Establish critical limits forr each CCP. Oncee CCPs have beenn
identifiedd, the means of tessting to ensure that the control is
adequate m must be establishhed for each. Thiss assessment mayy
include mmicrobiological, chhemical, physicall, sensory or
administraative procedures. Establish monito oring procedures for
each CCP P. Once establisheed, all controls mu ust be implementted
and the CCPs monitored too ensure that adeq quate control is beeing Rob McCaig
maintaineed. Monitoring shhould be on a conttinuous basis. July 2010 
 
 
 
 
DIP
PLOMA IN BR
REWING EXA
AMINATION 2010
2   Failed 90 41.9%
Grade
Module 2 – Yeas
st and Beer E 58 27.0%
F 23 10.7%
Oveerview G 9 4.2%
a there were 215 submitted scrripts which was a step change from
In all Anaalysis of question
ns that were answ
swered and the corresponding
c paass rate
prev
vious years underr my watch (161/22009, 166/2008). In all 125 candiidates was illuminating. Quuestions 2-4 weree answered by caa. 90% of the candidates
achiieved a pass gradde to give a pass rate
r of 58.1%. ThisT is an encouraaging h a pass rate of 80%
with 8 or so (Q2 an
and Q3) and 60%% (Q4). Alarminggly Q1
resu
ult building on lasst years alarming low of 42% whicch, perhaps, actedd as a answ
wered by 75% of o the candidatees achieved a pass rate of onlyy 27%.
‘wakke-up call’ for m mentors, candidaates and trainerss. The pass ratee for Sim
milarly the pass ra
ate for Q7 and 8 was also poor ata respectively 388% and
Moddule 2 over the last 15 years is presented in the belo
ow chart. 45%
%.

ble 2: Performan
Tab nce by question
M
Module 2 pass ratte (1995‐2010)
Question
Q Ansswered by Passed by Passed %
100 1 162 44 27
2 198 157 79
80
3 199 163 82
pass rate (%)

60 4 192 115 60
5 159 108 68
40 6 112 71 63
20 7 140 53 38
8 118 53 45
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Mod deration
year a 27 manuscripts were moderated
In all ed by Toby Epparrd. 20 were at thhe E/D
nd 3 at C/B.  
interrface, 4 at D/C an
Anaalysis of the graddes (Table 1) shhows that in 20110 there was geeneral ‘Do’s and don’ts’ fo or success in thiss (and other) exaaminations!
upw
ward trend across the grades. Onee candidate achieeved an impressiive A Thiss year, rather than
n adopting a worddy approach to su uggestions and guuidance
with
h 10 candidates ddelivering a B. There was a marked increase inn the for future candidatess here are 10 ‘topop tips’ in the forrm of ‘do’s and don’ts.
prop
portion of passess at C grade whiich increased to 20.9% (2009, 9. 3% - Hoppefully a list will be clearer and hitt home more effeectively.
20088, 16.9%) and E grade at 277% (2009, 22.4% – 2008, 15..7%).
Encoouragingly there was also a dropp in those achiev
ving F grade dowwn to  Do read the question, refleect on what is being asked and theen plan
10.7
7% (2009, 25.5% - 2008, 19.3%). your answ wer.
 Do answe er six questions – however briefly.
Tab
ble 1: Overall passs/fail rates and grades
 Don’t pla ay ‘hunt the questtion’ with the Ex
xaminer. New quuestion,
new (righ ht) page. The ansnswer should be on
o successive pagges not
Pa
assed 125 58.1%
scattered haphazardly arouund the answer bo ook.
Grrade  Do mark up questions atteempted on the front page and in the order
A 1 0.5
5% answered.
B 10 4.7
7%  Do write as legibly as youu can. Spelling is i nice but by no means
C 45 20.9% critical.
D 69 32.1%  

18           Insti
1 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 

 Do make an effort with drawings and schematics – use colour,  
label legibly and use an appropriate scale.
 Don’t begin your answer by writing the question out. Don’t
waffle, crack jokes or appeal to the Examiner to be kind,
sympathetic etc.
 Do manage your time.
 Do add lists and tables if they add value – ensure they are
appropriate and contain enough ‘meat’ to support the answer.
Questions and answers
Nothing has fundamentally changed here since last year so, without
apology, the 2009 comments are reproduced here in their entirety together
with some new thoughts from this papers Moderator. Candidates, mentors
and trainers please take note.
‘The questions and answers were firmly based on the syllabus. Whilst the
revision notes provide a firm grounding it is not sufficient to learn them
parrot-fashion and then regurgitate them irrespective of context.
Understanding helps as does making appropriate connections across the
syllabus and, where appropriate, commenting from experience. Further a
little reading around the subject can make a huge difference and garner
additional marks as well as the enthusiastic support of the examiner and
moderator. Scanning and dipping into the popular brewing press (such as
Brewing & Distilling International) is highly recommended particularly as
it frequently contain readable overviews that link well with the Diploma
content. Similarly pdf’s of useful articles can be sourced from the IBD
website’.
Moderator Toby Eppard suggests the following wise words in developing a
generalized strategy during the revision process.
1. ‘What’ – define the subject in terms of the study material.
2. ‘Why’ – why is it important – what impacts do changes in this
information in magnitude etc have upon systems or outputs.
3. ‘How’ – how do I control it? What changes can I make in the
subject/system and what are the outputs as a result.
It is also suggested that students work through a longer, supported
timeframe when revising for these exams – the effort applied over a longer
time period pays dividends in the outcome.
Question 1.
Describe the role of oxygen in (a) fermentation [10] and (b) in the
flavour instability of beer [10].
Marks were awarded on the basis of the following.
(a) Process - oxygen is added how/where and when - concentrations and
impact of collection gravity - wort contributes UFA - yeasts vary in oxygen
demand. Yeast - sterols/UFA (levels and examples are good) - role in
membrane (not wall!) and transport of nutrients into the cell - involvement
of glycogen providing energy. Consequences – oxygen/lipids determine
extent of yeast growth (sticking/slow v excessive yeast growth and impact
on ethanol yield) - lipids are diluted with cell division - yeast growth and
beer flavour/aroma (higher alcohols, esters, and acetaldehyde).
(b) Overview – how flavour instability can be avoided/minimised - impact
inversely proportional to ABV and content of dark malts. Flavour - lagers
(sweet, papery/cardboard/metallic), ales (molasses, toffee, dried fruit) -
general decrease floral, fruity and malty. Control/minimisation of oxygen
pick-up. Reactions - role of reactive oxygen species - lipid oxidation -
melanoidins - degradation of α and β hop acids.
This question was answered by 75% of the candidates but bizarrely
achieved a pass rate of 27%! Part A was especially poorly answered by the
majority of candidates who attempted this question. Regrettably for many
candidates there is the major misunderstanding that respiration/Krebs cycle
plays a role when oxygen is present at the beginning of fermentation in
generating ATP in brewery fermentations - they do not! Lengthy
descriptions/debates regarding higher alcohols, esters and sulphur
compounds were not rewarded unless linked to yeast growth and oxygen
provision. Descriptions of glycolysis were not expected (or rewarded). The
'flavour stability' part of the question was marginally better answered.
However again the question suffered from being misread and misinterpreted
as haze and its formation nor the contribution of aerobic spoilage bacteria
or, for that matter, esters, higher alcohols, diacetyl were asked for or
expected.
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               19
Question 2.
(a) Write notes on EITHER Give examples and explain what
components in beer have a positive or negative impact on
foam and why [14]. Outline two methods for the
measurement of beer foam and their limitations [6].
OR
(b) Discuss the origin, composition and control of non-biological
haze [12]. Write brief notes on the methods of analysis
available for predicting haze stability [8].
Marks were awarded on the basis of the following.
(a) Basics – formation/role of hydrophobic malt proteins and carbon dioxide
(and nitrogen) in stabilising gas/liquid interface/bubbles - consumer
perception. Positives - stages in foam development and bubble structure,
nitrogen, iso-α-acids/reduced hops compounds, melanoidins, malt proteins,
propylene glycol alginate, nucleating glasses. Negatives - antifoams,
denatured foam ex process, lipids (short chain fatty acids ex autolysed yeast)
and detergents. Methods - NIBEM, Rudin – how and pro's and cons
(similarly for any other method).
(b) Origin - malt (protein and polyphenol) and hops (polyphenols less than in
malt, not extracts). Composition - acidic proline rich proteins/hordeins +
flavanoids/phenolics polymerised to tannoids (di, tri, tetra, penta) + chill to
permanent haze story and - other hazes. Control - process - contribution of
raw materials, impact of high temperature mashing/sparging and boiling.
Control - treatment, protein (hydrolysis, precipitation, adsorption) and
polyphenol (adsorption, proantho free malt, hop extracts). Prediction -
measurement, hot/cold cycling and individual tannometer tests.
Choice of A or B - generally good, full answers (pass rate at 79%). One
candidate answered both A and B. Evidence in some answers of additional
reading and/or local knowledge. In the case of 'B', some candidates spent a
disproportionate amount of effort on the exotic and less common biological
hazes which were rewarded with a single mark. Some good answers were
structured chaotically and downloaded randomly. As ever it pays to plan and
structure your answer.
Question 3.
(a) With the aid of a labelled diagram outline the key cellular features of
a brewing yeast cell [10]. (b) Briefly describe the role of each cellular
structure and organelle in fermenting yeast [10].
Marks were awarded on the basis of the following.
(a) Diagram - allocated according to content (ex revision notes figure), clarity
and labelling. Detail of the cell wall was favoured. Taxonomy of lager and
ale strains together with insight on cell size was rewarded.
(b) Role - marks range from half to one to two depending on quality, depth
and, importantly, answers that were tailored to 'fermenting yeast' - e.g.
reduced role of promitochondria, flocculation, invertase, poly/ aneuploid
genetics.
A pass rate of 82% suggests this question was appreciated by the candidates.
A picture paints a thousand words so clarity, scale made a difference as did
the use of coloured inks to label and differentiate. Regrettably far too many
answers banged on about mitochondria being the 'powerhouse' of the cell and
went into inordinate length about respiration. The question was of course
about ‘fermenting yeast’.
Question 4.
(a) Detail best practice for the storage of pure yeast cultures in
the laboratory [5].
(b) Outline the process and plant for the propagation of yeast for
use in the brewery [15].
Marks were awarded on the basis of the following.
(a) Best practice - focus on cryogenic storage and its benefits coupled with
single-use slopes with a six month shelflife. For the record, freeze drying or
lyophilisation is most definitely not best practice as viabilities are (worse
than) poor!
 
 

(b) Process/plant – why propagatioon is necessary,, outline descripption,   Queestion 7.

prop
pagator design/sppecification, impportance of oxyg
gen, hygiene andd cell
denssity/yeast physiollogy and blendingg. (a) Outline the pathway by wwhich yeast mak
kes ethanol [8].
(b) Describe the influence oof wort composittion and fermenntation
Man ny answers weree disappointing and a missed the pointp of the queestion ns on beer pH [122].
condition
whicch requested 'bbest practice' (crryogenic storagee together withh the
conttrolled single usee of (the entire) slope) and not a comparison oof the Marrks were awarded
d on the basis of th
the following.
varioous methods. Thhere was a very real sense that many
m candidates ''don't
get' the basic philosoophy behind the need
n for periodic propagation of yyeast. (a) Context/sugar tra
ansport mechanissm/sequence - ou
utlining glycolysiss, mass
Repetitive and highlly detailed descrriptions of the vaarious steps weree not balaance, ATP, NADH/NAD.
requuired nor rewardeed. Further the question was cleearly not focusseed on
howw yeast is stored inn the brewery so why did many caandidates roll outt such (b) Wort - liquor, bu
uffer systems (car
arbonate, phosphaate), role of Ca annd Mg,
conttent? Whilst thee details might vary,
v the propaggation process shhould burrtonising, wort acidification and impact of brewwhouse process on o pH.
refleect a stepping uup in volumes and yields with the attendant and Ferrmentation - conssumption of FAN N, source and reelease of organicc acids,
subsstantial consideraation of hygienee and strain inteegrity. Reasons why protons, autolysis, wort
w composition (all malt v adjun ncts), factors stim
mulating
yeasst is propagated were rare as was w the importaance of aerationn and yeaast growth.
oxyg genation togetheer with high im mpact mixing in cell yield (the rare
occaasions that targett cell counts werre correctly identtified at transfer were On the
t face of it 'A' is
i pretty straightfforward. Ok answ
wers outlined glyycolysis
rewaarded) and imporrtance in achievinng pitching rate in i the first generration with
h particular reference to ATP ggeneration and redox balance. Good
ferm
mentation. A nuumber of answerrs addressed the rehydration of dried answ
wers outlined sug
gar transport and ssequence.
yeasst which whilst a form of propaggation missed maany of the pointss that
weree awarded marks. Partt B was typicallyy not well answer
ered and there waas often little joinned up
thin
nking but snippetss of knowledge oof which some waas occasionally helpful!
h
Queestion 5. Surpprisingly (to me)) an overview oof changes in pH H from brewhouuse and
subssequently throug gh fermentationn was a rare thing. This is also
Wriite notes on TWO
O of the followin
ng disaappointing given the
t overarching ssignificance of pH
H to the biochemiistry of
the process
p from starrt to finish.
(a) Causes annd avoidance of gushing [10].
(b) Origin an
nd significance ofo wild yeast [10]].  
(c) The beneefits of cross-flow
w filtration [10].
Queestion 8.
Marrks were awardedd on the basis of thhe following.
Outtline how the hyg
giene of breweryy plant is assured
d and controlled
d [20].
(a) Gushing
G – definittion, causes and avoidance.
a
Marrks were awarded
d on the basis of th
the following.
(b) Wild yeast - possible sources, Saccharomyces and d non Saccharomy
myces,
CIP - hot v cold, acid/alkali, recoverry/dump, key facctors in success, typical
crosss contaminationn and significancce - intentional usage, fermentaation,
cyclle, steps in a typic
cal clean, processs assurance/audit..
flav
vour, haze, phenoolic off-flavour annd superattenuatio
on.
uctures - systems (HACCP, TQ
Stru QM, sampling an
nd analysis planns etc),
(c) Cross-flow - implications of no filter aid (health and saafety,
hygiienic design, environmental hyggiene (external surfaces,
s air, buiildings,
vironmental, maanning, preparattion), footprint, automation, ssemi-
env
clossed vessels), training and educationn.
con
ntinuous/long runss, sterile beer, andd use with rough beer.
Valiidation - visual, rinses/swabs, conventional microbiology + ATP
Whiilst gushing and ''wild yeast' were generally well answered,
a the bennefits
bioluminescence.
of X-flow
X filtration w
was often poorly answered with an nswers that frequuently
misssed the point (foccussing on process principles, disadvantages).
Thiss question was looking for the 'biggger picture' in th
he assurance and control
c
of the
t hygiene of brewery plant. SSo yes, cleaning in general and CiP in
Queestion 6. partticular was imporrtant but similar m
marks were on offfer for the broadeer stuff
(hyggienic design etc, etc). Disapppointingly many candidates werre one-
Desccribe how hop d
derived compou
unds can influen
nce beer qualityy and dim
mensional focussin ng exclusively onn CiP or listing thhe numerous ‘systtems’ –
flavour [20]. in issolation both are important but thhe Examiner wass looking for joinned-up,
incluusive thinking.
Marrks were awardedd on the basis of thhe following.

Bitteerness - isomerisation, α and β acids and comp pounds, contribuution,

meaasurement, and ddifferent formats. Aroma components, aroma nnotes,
Davvid Quain,
addiition points, lighttstruck + reduced products. Role in
i foam, haze, flaavour
gust 2010 
Aug
stability, antimicrobial.

Manny of the good annswers (63% passsed) were balanceed, insightful andd well
consstructed.  
 
 
 
DIP
PLOMA IN BR
REWING EXA
AMINATION 2010
2   Passed
P Candidates %
Grade
G A 24 13.1
Module 3 – Pack
kaging and Process
P Tech
hnology B 31 16.9
C 40 21.9
The Module 3 Exam m was sat by 183 candidates,
c a larg
ge increase on thee 134 D 40 21.0
canddidates in 2009. The pass ratees, grades and details
d of candiddates’ Ov
verall Pass 135 73.8 %
perfformance on indivvidual questions are
a shown in the tables
t below. Failed
F
Grade
G E 32 17.5
ble 1: Overall Paass/Fail Rates and Grades
Tab F 13 7.1
G 3 1.6
Num
 
mber of Candidatees 183 Overall Fail 48 26.2 %
 

20           Insti
2 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 
  

Table 2: Performance by Question   A popular question and well answered by most candidates. The two main  
filling techniques are “by level” or “by volume” and most candidates related
Question Answered by: Passed by: Passed by %
that clear bottles filled by volume are not satisfactory to the consumer due to
1 150 116 77 the ragged fill levels. Volumetric fillers are better for can, where the wide
diameter makes filling by level a less satisfactory technique.
2 49 38 78
3 177 143 81 The difference between the control of fill and potential for DO pickup for
long and short tube fillers respectively was well explained and better answers
4 120 81 68 gave the detail of how the end of fill was controlled to give the final level.
5 53 39 74
Diagrams ranged from excellent to very poor. Candidates were not expected
6 64 49 77 to reproduce engineering cross sections of filling valves, but to use simple
7 63 32 51 diagrams to illustrate the key points.
8 125 104 83 Control of DO was well covered by most, although some candidates wasted
9 126 72 57 time and effort by talking about the pre-filter and filter operations themselves,
which were not in the scope of the question.
10 163 72 74
Question 2.
General Comments:
The overall pass rate at just under 74% is higher than in 2009, and it was Outline the constituents of detergents used to clean a packaging plant,
encouraging to see that there were far fewer Grade F and G candidates and and the optimum operating conditions for their use. [8] Draw an
a much greater percentage of Grades A, B and C passes than the previous annotated diagram of a full-recovery CIP system used for cleaning beer
year. filler and its associated buffer tanks. Show on the diagram, and describe,
the type and function of all sensors fitted in the CIP system. Note:
However, there are unfortunately still a number of candidates who are Diagrams of the beer filler and the associated tanks are NOT required.
sitting the exam clearly with little or no preparation, and this is particularly [12]
noticeable for the process technology questions.
This question was the least popular of all and only 49 candidates attempted
Last year it was evident that some candidates were only studying one or the question. However they were mostly good answers with a 78% pass rate.
other Section of the syllabus and hoping to pass on this basis, so for the first The three categories of detergents expected were caustic, acid and neutral
time in 2010 the IBD set a minimum standard of 35% which had to be with formulation by the addition of the following:-
achieved in both Sections in order to pass. It was pleasing to see that there
were only four candidates sitting the paper who achieved 45% or greater Sequestrants (chelating agents), such as EDTA, to keep metal ions in solution
overall but failed the Module as a result of this rule. But for the candidates and prevent precipitation, surfactants (wetting agents) to reduce surface
who achieved less than 45% it is still most evident that there are many tension and ensure detergent access into cracks and crevices, rinse aids to
candidates who are significantly weaker on the engineering questions help removal of the detergent and antifoams to prevent excessive foam
compared with those on packaging. Calculations are a key element of production – unless of course you are formulating a foam cleaner!
engineering and too many candidates chose to avoid the calculations. There
is also a lack of rigour and method in tackling the calculations, and any The diagrams of the full recovery CIP system were good in general although
assumptions made should always be stated, which are points that I hope can a few candidates insisted on drawing the filler and BBT despite the note at
be emphasised by Module 3 Trainers. the end of the question. This was not penalised but it cluttered the diagram,
wasted time and made the diagram harder to read for no marks gained.
Despite the clear instruction to candidates, there were too many examples of
failure to fill out the question numbers on the front cover. This is lazy on There was quite a range of answers on the sensors required, from only one to
the candidate’s behalf but it is also the invigilators duty, at the end of the everywhere! The biggest downfall was not explaining their function and in
exam, to ensure that all papers are completed correctly - a point to be many instances the location of the sensor made it practically useless for any
picked up by the IBD. control.

Diagrams were often poorly drawn and not executed neatly. True, it is not
an art exam, but candidates must be able to draw clear diagrams of
engineering items in order to demonstrate their understanding of their
design and working principles. The use of a ruler in drawing straight lines
can make a big difference to the overall appearance of a diagram. The first
time to practise drawing a valve or a pump is not at the exam. They need to
be practised beforehand so that they can be drawn in the exam with speed
and confidence.
It is a mystery why candidates waste valuable time in writing out the
question in full at the top of their answer. This year, it was pleasing to see
that there were only a few candidates doing this. However, including
information not relevant to the question is still a big problem. However
much the candidate may wish to demonstrate their impressive breath of
knowledge, if it is not relevant to the question, it gets no marks. There were
still too many instances of full page “introductions” to the answer, getting
no marks whatsoever, before getting into the job of addressing the question.
Both waste time and effort for no gain.
Section A – Packaging Technology
Question 1.
For either a bottle filler or a can filler, describe in detail, and with the
use of diagrams, the basic design and operating principles of the filler
in order to control fill levels and to minimise dissolved oxygen pick-up.
[20]
Question 3.
In the context of beer packaging, define what is meant by a “primary
packaging material” and explain the key functions that a primary
packaging material must achieve. [10] Give examples of primary
packaging materials used in the brewing industry, and explain the
properties of each material and its advantages and disadvantages.[10]
The most popular question answered by all but six of the 183 candidates and
well answered with an 81% pass rate.
Primary packaging materials are those in contact with the product. The
technical and marketing functions of the primary package were well covered
in most answers, as too were the examples with advantages and
disadvantages of the primary packages in use in the brewing industry today.
A fair number of candidates believe that the beverage cans in use today are
made from stainless steel, but they are mistaken – aluminium and tin-free
steel are the raw materials.
Question 4.
For the packaging process from filter outlet to final package only,
describe how the non-biological and microbiological integrity of
packaged beer can be assured. [20]
This question was looking for an account of the checks and balances that 

Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               21 
 

need to be in place to ensure that the equipment and processes from filter
outlet to final package are giving the desired result in terms of biological
and non-biological integrity. It was not a good answer to just outline the
equipment and processes that take place. For example, few marks were
awarded for saying that packaged cans or bottles need to be put through a
tunnel pasteuriser to give 12 PUs. Better marks were given for saying
that temperatures and throughput times need to continuously or regularly
checked, that temperature probes require calibration and that spay
nozzles need checking to ensure they are not blocked and causing cold
spots. The process can also be checked with a PU monitor put through
the pasteuriser at frequent set intervals.
Poorer answers were often poorly structured with a ramble through the
relevant points and also tended to concentrate on either one or other of
biological or non-biological problems. The latter are haze from particles
such as filter aid or denatured fob, poor foam from lubricants, roughs
handling or detergent residues and poor flavour stability from oxidation
and lightstrike.
 
Question 5.
Write brief notes, in the context of packaging, on FOUR of the
following analytical methods.
Beer colour
Beer bitterness
Total in package oxygen
Original gravity
Package contents
Can seam evaluation [5 marks each]
Thankfully, this year all candidates, with just a couple of exceptions,
realised that the question was asking for the methods of analysis and
answered the question accordingly. The methods are readily available in
EBC, ASBC etc. methods so will not be reproduced here.
The main problem for candidates was the measurement of original
gravity in packaged product. Some candidates described the
measurement of original gravity in wort by saccharometer or density
meter and were awarded no marks. To find the original gravity of a beer
requires measurement of both the present gravity and the alcohol content,
either by distillation (reference method in the UK) or by refractometer.
Refractometer is a quicker method using the refractive index of a
degassed, filtered sample, relative to a distilled water blank, to input into
a regression equation, along with the present gravity of the beer, to give
the original gravity
Section B – Process Technology
Question 6.
Describe the role of Carbon, Chromium and Nickel in the
formulation of stainless steel and explain how the elements
Molybdenum, Titanium and Niobium modify the properties. [10]
Name two austenitic stainless steels widely used in the brewing
industry and discuss, with reference to composition and relative cost,
where and why they might be used. [6] Describe one mode of
stainless steel corrosion that can lead to plant failure in the brewery.
[4]
This should have been a straightforward textbook answer for most
candidates, even if asked in a slightly different way to questions in
previous years, but it was one of the least popular questions. However
those that did attempt it answered it well and the pass rate was high. It is
a topic about which anyone who works in a brewery should know the
basics. Stainless steel is the main construction material in process and
packaging and making the right choice of grade is important.
The most common grades are the two austenitic steels AISI 304 and 316,
the latter having addition of molybdenum for better resistance to pitting
corrosion and being the more expensive. Both are available as low
carbon (0.03%) versions AISI 304L and 316L, or with the addition of
titanium or niobium; imparting better resistance to weld decay.
Most candidates selected stress corrosion cracking (SCC) as their mode
of corrosion to discuss, since it has been the cause of the most
catastrophic failures of brewing plant. Better answers covered the key
22           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
conditions for SCC to occur: temperatures above 60C, residual tensile stress
in the steel from fabrication or repair, free chloride ions and a low oxygen
environment. Few answers mentioned that it occurred as cracking across the
crystal grain boundaries without loss of material, as would be observed, for
example, in pitting corrosion. This is why it is so difficult, or impossible to
effect a repair.
Question 7.
Explain why dry saturated steam is used for process heating in breweries
and why it is desirable to give this quality of steam a few degrees of
superheat before it is transferred from the boiler house to process
equipment. [4] 500hl of wort at its boiling point of 100 ºC and with a
density of 1060 kg m-3 is boiled under standard atmospheric conditions
to achieve an evaporation of 10% over a 90 minute boil. The kettle is
heated by a calandria supplied with dry saturated steam at 3 bar gauge
pressure. Assuming the calandria is 95% efficient, calculate the steam
flowrate in kg s-1 and the area of the heat transfer surface of the
calandria for steady state evaporation of the wort if its overall heat
transfer coefficient is 1200 W m−2 K−1. [8]
Data: Steam Table
Temperature Pressure Specific enthalpy
C bar gauge of evaporation kJ
kg-1
100 0 2257
120 1 2201
134 2 2163
144 3 2133
152 4 2108
Explain why condensate has to be removed from steam systems and
draw a diagram to show all the components of a condensate recovery
system. Describe the faults that can occur and explain the role of each
component in the recovery of condensate from steam heating systems. [8]
This question was as equally unpopular as the previous question and it too
covers a key area of brewery operations – the provision of steam. It was
depressing that this question was poorly answered with a pass mark for only
just over half of those attempting the question. So where were the problems?
For dry saturated steam as heating media, apart from high latent heat, few
candidates mentioned the high heat transfer coefficient of condensing steam,
the compactness of steam heating systems or the convenient temperatures and
pressures that suit brewery operations. The raw material for steam production
is cheap, plentiful, non-toxic and safe since it is of course water, preferably
recovered as condensate from the brewery. The need for a small amount of
superheat in order to minimise condensation in the steam distribution
pipework was quite well known and explained.
Condensate removal from distribution systems and plant was not well
covered in many answers. Condensate is valuable for its heat content and
boiler feed-water quality. Slugs of condensate in distribution systems can
cause damage akin to water-hammer, and can also blind part of the heat
transfer area in heating equipment reducing efficiency.
The equipment for condensate removal includes separators, steam traps,
condensate recovery tank and pump (often as a set) and draw-offs at low
points in pipework.
In the calculation, there were simplicity benefits in getting into units of kg/s
for evaporation so that the heat requirement was in kJ/s or kW, and in units
compatible with U, the overall heat transfer coefficient. Most erroneous
answers got lost in the calculation with numbers too big to handle, without
making errors.
Question 8.
With the use of diagrams, describe the basic design features and
operating principles of THREE of the following types of valve:-
a. Globe [5]
b. Butterfly (wafer) [5]
c. Gate [5]
d. Ball [5]
e. Diaphragm [5] 
 

Explain, with diagrams, how a globe valve can be incorporated into  
an automated loop for the control of flow to a fixed setpoint. [5]
 
A popular question and some excellent diagrams and some not quite so
good! But it was textbook stuff and well answered by most candidates
although on a few occasions a gate valve was confused with a slide
valve, such as might be used on a malt conveying system.
For the final part, the question was looking for explanation and diagrams
of a control loop and the key components that need to be included in
such a loop to make it work. The question quite clearly states “control of
flow to a fixed setpoint” yet many candidates, for reasons only known to
themselves, opted for temperature control loops, dilution loops, level
control loops etc. etc. – in fact anything but a flow control loop!
So what was expected? A flowmeter and transmitter send a 4 – 20mA
signal – the measured variable - to a controller. The controller, which
will now usually be digital, compares the measured variable with the
setpoint and generates an error signal – positive or negative. The error
signal is computed into an appropriate control action to be applied to the
correcting device, in this case a globe valve. The globe valve is probably
pneumatically actuated so the correcting signal would need to be
converted from a 4 – 20 mA signal to a 3 – 15 psig pneumatic signal by
an I/P (current to pressure) converter. The pneumatic signal can then
position the globe valve anywhere between fully closed and fully open in
response to the signal and the current valve position is relayed back to
the controller confirming that the right action is taking place.
Question 9.
Explain Reynolds Number in terms of a fluid’s properties and its
relevance in characterising fluid flow regimes. [4]
Draw diagrams of typical flow regimes in a pipe of circular cross
section showing their velocity profiles and state the relationship
between the centre line velocity to average velocity in each case. Give
an example of where each flow regime may typically be encountered
in a brewery. [8]
A cylindrical tank of 3m diameter is filled with beer to a height of
5m. The tank is held under a constant CO2 pressure of 1 bar gauge.
If the 75mm outlet valve mounted in the centre of the base of the
tank is inadvertently fully opened so that its contents are discharged
directly to atmosphere, estimate the time taken to empty the tank
assuming a linear relationship between volume flow and height of
beer in the tank. [8]
Data:
Bore of valve when fully opened = 75mm
Density of the beer = 1006 kg m-3
Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m s-2
1 bar = 100 kPa
Most candidates knew that Reynolds number had something to do with
characterising fluid flow and were able to state its components. It is the
ratio of inertial and viscous forces in a fluid and a key point missed by
many candidates was that it’s a dimensionless number – it has no units.
Flow is usually laminar when Re is below 2000 and usually turbulent
when Re is above 4000.
The diagrams of turbulent and laminar flow velocity profiles were well
drawn and most candidates were able to relate the centre line (maximum)
velocity to the average velocity for both regimes and extra marks were
awarded for the Blasius 1/7th power law. Unfortunately a number of
candidates mixed up the flow profiles for the two regimes.
A choice of examples for laminar flow in a brewery could be HFO,
syrups or yeast slurry, It is the high viscosity of these fluids that enables
laminar flow to exist. Several candidates stated that the beer flow at < 1.5
m/s to a bottle or can filler would be laminar. This is highly unlikely   July 2010
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               23
since in a 4 inch (100mm) diameter pipe, for example, the Re would be
150,000 (= (1000 x 1.5 x 0.1) / 0.001 if assumed as water). Laminar flow has
been obtained at Reynolds Numbers of 40,000 by increasing flow very gently
from a low Reynolds Number, but it only needs the slightest disturbance to
initiate eddies and turbulence. So examples of turbulent flows are just about
everything else!
The calculation was poorly answered with few candidates attempting or
completing the calculation. Poorer candidates were unable to write out the
Bernoulli equation correctly, which would have gained a few marks, or to
calculate the volume of the fluid in the tank. A well-drawn annotated diagram
showing the points between which Bernoulli was being applied would have
shown that the candidate understood what they were trying to achieve, but
these were scarce. So it’s not surprising that few candidates worked through
to an answer, which would have been 8 minutes 28 seconds.
Question 10.
Describe what is meant by the term “pasteurisation” and illustrate
graphically the relationship between time, temperature and lethal rate.
[5] Define a pasteurisation unit (PU) and discuss the effect of
pasteurisation on different organisms and the additional environmental
factors that might affect their survival. [6] Calculate the mole fraction of
carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved in beer containing 2.2 volumes of CO2 at
standard temperature and pressure (STP) . [4] Calculate the pressure
required to maintain the CO2 in solution when the beer is pasteurised at
73C. [5]
Data:
Assume beer has the same density and molecular weight as water.
Density of water = 1000 kg m-3
Molecular weight of water = 18
Henry’s constant for CO2 in beer at 73C = 440 MPa mole fraction-1
STP is a temperature of 0C and a pressure of 101.325 kPa.
The molar volume of an ideal gas is 22.4 m3 kmol-1 at STP
The most popular Section B question and it was comforting to see that most
candidates were able to explain pasteurisation and to make a good attempt at
defining a pasteurisation unit. Less good were the answers to link lethal death
rate to temperature and time. Quite a few candidates plotted the survival of
different organisms against time as a series of straight lines, each one
representing a different temperature, but probably the best way to show the
interdependency is the Del Vecchio graph of log time against temperature,
with a zone of lethal effectiveness to the right of the line/curve. Answers that
just covered the decimal reduction time, D, were less well rewarded since it
does not indicate how variations from the stated temperature e.g. D60, affects
kill. The way D changes with temperature is provided by the Z value which
indicates the rise in temperature required for a 10 fold decrease in D.
A number of candidates just presented a graph of zone and package
temperatures through a tunnel pasteuriser as the answer, which failed to score
any marks.
The positive and negative environmental factors, other than time and
temperature, were well recalled.
The two calculations at the end of this question should have been easy marks
for most candidates and this was the case. So 2.2 v/v means that 2.2 m3 of
CO2 is contained in 1 m3 of beer (assumed to be water). If 1 kmole of gas
occupies 22.4 m3 at STP, then 2.2 m3 of CO2 would equate to 0.0982 kmole.
For the beer (water), 1 m3 weighs 1000 kg and this is 1000/18 = 55.56 kmole.
So the mole fraction of CO2 is 0.0982/ (0.0982 + 55.56) = 0.00177.
Multiplied by Henry’s constant of 440 MPa per mole fraction, the pressure
required at 73 C would be 0.778 MPa.
Brian Eaton
 

DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING EXAMINATION 2010  
The examination followed the same arrangement as in 2009, which
meant that Module 1 was in two parts. The first part was a multiple-
choice questionnaire worth 30 marks, 10 each for cereal, grape and
molasses raw materials, which was the same for all candidates. Then
followed a choice of 4 essay questions from 6, based on either cereal or
molasses worts. Modules 2 and 3 had only a single paper for each, with
a choice of 6 from 8 questions which were equally applicable to cereal or
molasses spirits. Fourteen candidates qualified for the Diploma in
Distilling, mostly by passing individual modules over several years, but
one passed all three modules in a single attempt.
This comment is based on problems with scripts from all of the
examinations. Candidates must make sure that the examiner knows
which questions have been answered. Although most followed the
instructions to do so, this year I got the impression that more candidates
than usual did not. If that continues, sooner or later an answer will not
be marked because the examiner does not know it is there. So, start each
answer on a new page, indicating clearly the number of the question.
That is particularly important if the previous answer finished at the
bottom of a page. And please write the numbers of the questions in the
box on the cover in the order in which they were answered. Also, here
is a request which does not appear in the instructions on the exam book:
if it is necessary to subdivide the answer into separate sections, label
them a, b, c etc. Never use numbers, which could be confused with
numbers of questions.
Module 1 –Materials and Fermentable Wort
Cereal Option
In comparison with the excellent pass rates of recent years, performance
in this module and Module 2 was disappointing. Of the 28 candidates
who sat the Cereal Module 1 examination, only 20 passed (71.4%): 10 at
grade B, 7 at C and 3 at D, but there is some comfort in half of the
successful candidates reaching grade B. However, the average mark,
which of course includes the failed candidates, was only 56.2%. I hope
that the following comments on this examination will stimulate better
pass rates and higher average marks in future.
Question 1.
Give a full account of the physiological and biochemical changes
associated with the germination of barley, and describe how these
changes differ between grain germinating in the field and
germination during the malting process. [20]
All candidates answered this question, to widely varying standard; giving
an average mark of 11.5/20, i.e. similar to the over-all average for the
module. Most answers provided an adequate account of the
physiological/structural changes associates with water uptake and
modification. Many of the 8 fail marks were due to the absence of any
mention of enzyme activity, which the word “biochemistry” indicated
was expected. The second part of the question was essentially, “What
are the different effects of the constant and optimal conditions of the
germination vessel, particularly moisture and temperature, compared
with the uncontrolled conditions in the field?” The intention was a
comparison between (a) production of malt under consistent conditions,
particularly moisture and temperature, with minimal malting loss and (b)
the natural growth of a new barley plant, which provided ample
opportunity to discuss the biochemistry of malting from a novel
viewpoint. I was disappointed to find so many answers either ignoring
this second part of the question or dismissing it in a few lines. A number
of candidates understood “germinating in the field” to mean pre-
germination, which I accepted as a valid interpretation, provided the
expected comparisons were made between controlled and uncontrolled
conditions.
Question 2.
Compare the important operating advantages and disadvantages of
THREE types of kiln used in the production of malt for distilling and
explain why monitoring the air-on and air-off temperatures is so
important. [15] Explain why the production of peated malt is best
suited to only one type of kiln. [5]  (a) the malt kiln and (b) the malt out-loading bin. [6]
24           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
The question was set on the assumption that at least one of the modern multi-
purpose kiln designs would be discussed, but some answers were limited to
three variations on the traditional kiln Even though I had doubts that they
really were three distinct “types” I reluctantly accepted that as legitimate;
also it meant there was none of the intended discussion about advantages and
disadvantages of germination and kilning in the same vessel. Whatever the
type of kiln, most candidates obviously appreciated that the importance of
temperature on preservation of enzyme activity had to be discussed. Also the
importance of indirect heating, or if not, other precautions to prevent
development of NDMA. Except of course for production of peated malt,
where the smoke from smouldering peat must pass through the bed of moist
grain. It should have been obvious that answers to this question required
sketches of equipment and graphs of air temperatures, and as usual a number
of candidates lost marks by omitting these visual aids. So only 10 of the 15
answers achieved a pass mark or higher, and the average mark was only
10.5/20
Question 3.
Describe, and explain the reasons for, each of the steps in processing
malt in a malt whisky distillery, beginning with its arrival from the
maltings and ending with charging the mash tun.[20]
This was another question answered by all candidates, most of whom
provided a satisfactory list of the successive processes, and I was pleased that
many answers included a flow diagram to link the successive stages. Marks
varied according to the detail in both the description and the reasons why
each particular process was required. Of course that had to be relevant, so
although not actually the mechanical processing I had in mind, a brief
account of delivery checks was acceptable. However, a full malt
specification certainly was not. There were three marginal fail marks, but
with some very good answers as well the average mark was 12.1/20: not
brilliant, but the highest for a question in this module.
Question 4.
Give an account of the properties and biochemical activities of the malt
enzymes which are involved in the mashing process. [20]
With 22 answers this was the third most popular question, which generated
an unusually wide range of marks averaging 11.0/20, including the 6 fail
marks. Most of the enzymic activity of mashing is concerned with starch, so
provided the main starch-degrading enzymes were properly discussed, a good
mark was assured. For properties, temperature and pH optima were
particularly important, and it was expected that sketches of relevant
molecules would accompany discussion of biochemical activities. However,
other enzymes are also involved in a minor way and some discussion was
required for the highest marks.
Question 5.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of processing unmalted cereal
grains above, at or below 100oC for production of grain distillery wort.
[20]
This was another instance of unforeseen ambiguity, and more significant than
that in questions 1 and 2. The intended meaning could be expressed, ”Now
that many distilleries are economising on energy use by processing the cereal
at lower temperatures than the previously standard pressure-cooking at
130OC or more, compare the advantages and disadvantages of these three
different temperatures”. Since all 9 answers were based on something like
”Discuss the advantages of using cooked cereal (whatever the cooking
temperature) instead of a slurry of milled raw grain”, I accepted that as a
reasonable understanding of the question and the answers were marked
accordingly. However, I still expected some comparison of the three specified
temperature ranges, so no mention at all of different cooking temperatures
lost marks. Although that may have contributed to some of the 5 fail marks,
the main reason for failure was that these particular answers were
unsatisfactory accounts of cereal cooking in general. Such a high proportion
of failures had a bad effect on the average mark, a disappointing 7.6/20..
Question 6.
Describe the procedures to minimize sampling errors in preparing
material for analysis from
 
  

Explain
E the differrence between accuracy
a and preecision in laboraatory   sam
mpling proceduress. Also, some haad accuracy verssus precision the wrong
analyses. [4] Briiefly explain thee importance off diastatic poweer of wayy round: it is prec
cision (also knowwn as reproducib
bility) which mighht give
malt,
m and describbe ONE method d for the measurrement of DP in n the exacctly the same wrong result in reppeated analyses. Finally, Recomm mended
la
aboratory. [10] Metthods or practicaal experience proovided many com mpetent answers to the
mainn part of the question. Either an enzyme kit or a traditional Fehlinng’s or
Recommended
R Methods of Analyysis and similarr laboratory mannuals
M ferro
ocyanide method d was acceptablle provided the candidate show wed an
prrovide detailed instructions forr obtaining reprresentative laborratory awaareness of how it worked. Unfoortunately, that wasw lacking from m the 2
saamples from bulkk grain. Additionnal information wasw welcome, buut the answwers which did noot reach the pass mark.
annswer to the firsst part was expeected to be main nly an outline oof the
sttrategies for samppling. Although most of the 10 answers, average mark
11.4/20, showed aawareness of the differences
d that prompted the choiice of n Campbell
Iain
hese two particulaar vessels for the question, many were
th w weak on thee Julyy 2010
   
 
 
 
Module
M 1 –Ma
aterials and Fermentable
F Wort   Queestion 3
Molasses
M Opttion
Sketch a flow chartt and describe tthe processing of o sugar cane froom the
The
T Module 1 Exaam for the molassses option was sat by only two cut cane to the deliv
very of molasses to the distillery.
caandidates, who booth passed. This report
r will thereffore not commentt on
A good, large, well-ddrawn flowchart, using a ruler for neatness, is essenntial in
th
heir performance,, but outline the salient
s points thatt were expected fo
for
answwering this questiion and can lead oon into a descripttion of the variouus steps
eaach question.
in th
he processing of cane to molasses es. It would be reelevant to point outo that
mollasses is not the important produc uct, and is very much
m the by-prodduct of
Question
Q 1
crysstalline sugar pro
oduction. Sugar pprice can determine how much suugar is
worrth extracting and hence the amounnt of processing required.
r
List
L all the possiible sources of molasses and discuss
d their rellative
im
mportance for th
he production off rum and potable neutral spirit..
Queestion 4
Sugar cane accounnts for about 70% % of the world’s su ugar production aand
Describe what constitutes the ash content of mollasses and outliine the
suugar beet for mosst of the remaininng 30%. There aree however a few oother
soources of much sm maller volume thhat are important ini their area for reassons why the ash content of moolasses is of critiical importance to the
disttiller. Describe th
he process stepss taken by the diistiller to minim
mise the
distilled spirit prodduction. It was exxpected that sorgh
hum, sugar palm and
advverse effects of hiigh ash content.
ciitrus peel molassees would all be mentioned
m and theeir relative importtance
discussed. The culltivation of sugar cane in tropical and
a sub-tropical
High h ash content caan be a major prroblem for the molasses
m distillerr, apart
reegions, comparedd with sugar beet cultivation in tem mperate zones is aan
from
m the obvious pro oblem of paying for something th hat is not going to yield
im
mportant differennce.
any alcohol. Therefo ore a specificatioon of < 10% ash is advisable. There are
otheer compounds that can cause prooblems, such as plantp material froom the
Their
T use for rum
m and potable neeutral spirit prodduction is affecteed by
canee or beet and this can be present at up to 20% an nd may be depossited as
both legal and quuality constraints. For example, th he legal definitioon of
slud
dge in various parrts of the plant. HHowever, the minneral salts – prinncipally
ru
um in most counntries restricts thhe raw material for its productioon to
the salts of calcium such
s as calcium ssulphate (gypsum
m) can be a real prroblem.
su
ugar cane and thhe products from m sugar cane. Sug gar beet on the other
Theey can cause probblems of scale depposition in the stiill where they cann close
hand is not used for rum producction due to a pervading
p “vegetaable”
dowwn the holes in thhe sieve plates, rreducing flow an nd throughput. Calcium
C
chharacter, but can be used for neutrral spirit.
saltss are particularlly troublesome since their solu ubility decreasess with
Some discussion w was expected on the definition off molasses since ssome
incrreasing temperatuure and with inccreasing alcohol concentration: both b of
“ssyrups”, such ass sorghum syrupp are called mo olasses, which iss not
which occur in the sttills.
sttrictly speaking ccorrect since no sugar will have been extracted. It is
siimilar for high-teest molasses.
Buy ying low ash mollasses in the firsst place is obviou usly preferable, but
b the
two methods of dealiing with the ash ccontent, are the use
u of high tempeerature,
Question
Q 2
say 75C, alone and d high temperaturre plus sulphuricc acid to precipittate the
Describe
D in detaiil the growing an nd harvesting off sugar cane and
d the calccium as sulphate, along with a lot oof the plant debris.
fa
actors that influeence the yield off cane juice.
Queestion 5
This
T question wass looking for expplanation of how sugar cane is ussually
grrown from stem cuttings, althouggh propagation from f seed is posssible. Listt the likely micro
oorganisms thatt might be preseent in molasses and
a for
The
T cane requiress a minimum off 600mm of rain nfall or irrigationn and eachh, describe its effect
e on the prrocessing of thee molasses to prroduce
grrows all year roound in the tropiics, but with a 7 - 8 month groowing rum
m. [10]
seeason in the sub-ttropics, for exampple in the USA.
The
T plants requiree good, fertile soiil and fertilisers will
w be applied too give Listt the cultured microorganisms
m that are typicallly pitched into a rum
a high yield. As ann alternative, dunnder from the disttillery can be put back ferm
mentation and thhe reasons why tthey are used. [10]
onnto the ground ass fertiliser.
Thee high osmotic pre
essure in molassees, due to the high h solids content, and
a
When
W the sugar cooncentration reachhes its maximum
m, the cane is readdy for high
h storage tempera
ature usually limitt the risk of infecction but there a few
f
harvesting. This is typically after 10 -12 months ofo growth but caan be micrro-organisms that can grow slowlyy.
frrom 6 – 24 monthhs.
uconostoc mesentteroides producess dextran.
Leu
Canes
C are harvestted either manuallly or by machine, cutting the canne as momonas mobilis can produce sulpphury off-flavourrs
Zym
cllose to the groundd as possible sincce the sugar conccentration is higheest at Lacctobacillae in dilu
uted molasses prooduce acid and reeduce yield
th
he base of the steem. For manual harvesting
h the caanes may be pre-bburnt
to
o remove the leaaves, whereas in mechanical harv vesting the leavees are Thee micro-organism ms that are used inn the fermentationn comprise:
sttripped and returnned to the groundd for compost. Sacccharomyces cere evisiae either singgle strain or perh
haps two complim mentary
straains
T yield of juice and the sugar concentration arre variable; the latter
The Wild yeasts, possibly from dunder.
ty
ypically 13% succrose by weight, but typically from f 9 – 17%. Y
Yield Schhizosaccharomyce es pombe, as fissiion yeast produciing different flavvours to
varies with the soiil fertility, rainfall and the climate..   the culture yeast. 

Instiitute of Brew
wing and Disstilling Exam iners Reportt 2010               25 
 
 

Clostridium
C saccharobutyricum producing buty
yric acid for ester   Thee total reducing su
ugars expressed aas % w/w “as gluccose” or “as inverrt”
formation.
f depeending on the Lanne and Eynon facctors used. Calciu um may complex with
gluccose and fructose, but this can be aavoided by sequeestering the calciuum
Question
Q 6 with
h EDTA.

Describe
D a laboraatory procedure for the determiination of each oof the Thee protein content of
o cane molasses is low, circa 3%,, and about 8% foor beet
fo
ollowing in molaasses:- mollasses. Protein is determined
d by me
measurement of thee nitrogen contennt,
a. T
Total sugars as in
nvert (TSAI) [10] which can be measurred by two methoods, Kjeldahl and Dumas. It was
b. N Nitrogen content [10] expeected that the bassic steps of each m
method would be described and beetter
answwers would conta ain more detail.
To
T measure the TS SAI on a molassees sample, the sug gars need to be
co
onverted to the m
monosaccharides – “inverted”. Inveersion refers to w what For the Kjeldahl metthod, the three steeps are:-
happens when a beeam of polarised light is passed th hrough the sugar  digestion using conc. sulphhuric acid, potasssium sulphate andd a
olutions. Disacchharides rotate the plane of light in one
so o direction, copper ca atalyst to break thhe complex proteiins into ammoniuum
whereas
w with monnosaccharides, thee rotation is reverrsed or “inverted””. sulphate. This takes about an hour at 400C C.
 distillation to extract the am
ammonia into boriic acid solution from
fr
Innversion is carried out by:- the digestt, which has beenn made alkaline.
Either
E adding citriic acid, boiling foor 10 minutes, coo
oling and then  titration with
w hydrochloricc acid to an end point with an indiccator –
neutralising with ssodium hydroxidee, or adding hydro ochloric acid andd bromocre esol green and meethyl red – red in acid, grey at end point
leeaving for an houur at room temperrature before neuttralising as beforee. and blue ini alkaline solutioon.

The
T total sugars arre then measured by the Lane-Eyn
non colourmetric Thee Dumas method is a high temperrature pyrolysis of o the sample in oxygen
o
method
m or by HPLLC. at 900C, forming ca arbon dioxide, wwater and nitrogen
n. Passing the pyyrolysis
gasees through colum mns removes thhe carbon dioxid de and water annd the
The
T Lane-Eynon m method measures sample reducing g power and assum mes nitro
ogen is then mea asured using a theermal conductivitty detector. The Dumas
D
alll reducing compounds are sugars. Copper (II) in Fehling’s solutionn is
reeduced to copper (I) and forms a red
r precipitate of oxide and
methhod is faster, can be readily autom  
mated and does noot use toxic chem
micals.
decolourisation off methylene blue indicator.
i   Bria
an Eaton
Julyy 2010

DIPLOMA
D IN D
DISTILLING EXAMINATIO
ON 2010   Queestion 2.

Whhat factors influ

uence the produuction of higheer alcohols and esters
Module
M 2 –Ferrmentable, Distillation
D an
nd Maturation
n durring fermentatioon by yeast, aand how, in th heory, could thhey be
controlled? [20]
Inn the preamble too the Cereal Module 1 report, I complained
c abouut the
poor performancee of a substantiall proportion of candidates. Moduule 2 Thee intention of que estion 2 was a diiscussion of the effect
e of environnmental
was
w even worse: 7 of the 19 candidates failed, giving a pass rate off only and nutrient factors on the productiion of the speciffied flavour conggeners.
63% and an averagge mark of only 48.6% 4 for the moodule (i.e. at the llower Thee phrase “in theorry” was included to provide an op pportunity to discuuss not
ennd of grade D). That was becausse more than halff of the passes weere in onlyy commercially acceptable
a variatioons (e.g. pressuree, temperature) but
b also
th
hat grade: 2 at B, 4 at C and 7 at D.D It is of particu ular concern to mee that posssibilities prohibite
ed in commerciall production: certtainly of Scotch whisky,
w
qu uestions 5 and 66, the two that werew specifically
y on distilling thheory, although not necessa arily so for somee other products. In a research context,
c
generated so manyy fail marks in a Diploma in Disttilling examinatioon. It nitroogen or unsaturatted fatty acid addditions to wort are
a two examples which
iss true that, in term
ms of average maark, 10/20, questio on 5 was answereed no wou uld be particularrly appropriate. Most answers showed the meetabolic
worse
w than most oof the others, indeeed it is rather an unusual situationn that pathhways of ester and higher alcohol production, but a tabular presentaation of
alll questions exceept 6 and 8 scorred almost exacttly the same aveerage effeects of fermentation conditions on congener prroduction was also a an
mark.
m However, the fact that soo many questions and the final mark acceeptable response provided some aadditional explan nation was includded. In
avveraged so close to the 45% pass markm was yet anoother disappointm ment. the context of the qu uestion as set, thhat latter approacch had the advanttage of
morre easily clarifyiing the theoreticcal possibilities of the supplem mentary
Question
Q 1. secttion, which were either ignoredd or poorly exp plained by the weaker
w
cand didates. There were
w 4 failed ansswers, resulting in only 9 passes and an
Explain
E in biocheemical and morp
phological termss the structure oof the averrage mark of 10.3 3/20
yeast cell membrrane, and how iti controls transsport of solutes into
and out of the celll. [20] Queestion 3.

Question
Q 1 was chhosen by all candiidates, and the firrst answered by m many. a) Define yeast viability and vital ality, and explain their importaance in
What
W a welcome change from a few f years ago wh hen biochemistryy was disttillery fermentation practice. [100]
eiither avoided, orr chosen in despeeration for a sixtth answer! Althhough b) Describe the principle
p and prrocedure of ON NE method EAC CH for
soome answers shoowed an unfortunnate lack of knowledge of membbrane theiir measurement. [10]
sttructure and funcction, there weree many competen nt descriptions oof the
membrane
m bi-layeer and the permeease enzymes wh hich form part oof its Perhhaps it is unfortunate that such similar words are a in common use u for
sttructure. Sterols also contribute to
t that structure, but were ignoredd in a diffe
ferent aspects of being alive. A All of the 17 can ndidates answerinng this
suurprising numberr of scripts. Sincce they are not diirectly involved iin the quesstion were aware e that percentagee viability referreed to the percenttage of
trransport activitiees that much off a good answeer should have been livin
ng cells, and most correctly statedd that, for yeast, “aalive” means capable of
co oncerned with, tthe omission waas treated lenien ntly, but as esseential reprroduction. But yeast cultures oof the same % viability can vary v in
membrane
m compoonents sterol had to be included in n the answer. I must metabolic activity, probably because of different storaage conditions. It I is the
allso mention thaat several answ wers claimed thaat the membranne is ngth of their pote
stren ential fermentativve activity which “vitality” measurres. As
hy ydrophobic on onne side and hydroophilic on the oth her, but that is wr
wrong. seveeral candidates co
orrectly stated, viitality is analogouus to fitness in huumans.
Hydrophilic
H glyceerol is on both the
t outer and in nner surfaces andd the Almmost all chose to describe methyleene blue (MB) sttaining and effluxx of H+
hy ydrophobic fattyy acid “tails” arre in the interio or of the membbrane ionss for viability annd vitality respeectively, and exccept in two veryy poor
sttructure. Twelvve answers scoreed pass mark or above, spectacuularly answwers, candidates were obviously ffamiliar with these two methods. Some
ab bove in some casses, but opposed by some spectaccularly bad fail m marks scorred better than others by additiional relevant detail,d e.g. that strictly
th
he average was exxactly 10.0/20.  speaaking, MB measu ures metabolic acttivity, but gives ana acceptable indiication 

26           Insti
2 tute of Brew
wing and Distilling Examiiners Reportt 2010  
 
  

of viability at the hhigh values requiired. An account of the three usuaal   As with
w question 5, theret seemed to bbe some misundeerstanding over what w the
ty
ypes of yeast, cream, pressed (or cake)
c and dried, was
w not regarded aas quesstion was about. It did not seek a general explanaation of the operaation of
reelevant except in the case of one enterprising
e candiidate who linked tthese conttinuous stills, buut specifically conncerned the impllications of the relative
r
foorms to storage shhelf-life and viabbility of the pitching yeast. I was volaatilities of ethanol and the specifieed higher alcoholls over the % abvv range
suurprised by the nuumber of candidaates claiming 90% % as an acceptablee enco ountered in batch h and continuous distillation. Oveer the course of a batch
minimum
m % viabillity. That was noot penalised sincee it could be theirr distiillation the opposing effects tendd to cancel out, and a these congenners are
coompanies' specifiication, but 95% is more commonlly regarded as thee ofteen regarded as hav ving similar volat atility to ethanol over
o the whole ruun. But
minimum
m requiremment. Confusion over
o “vitality” caaused the two worrst of that is not strictly tru
ue, and it may bee an advantage th hat with about 800% abv
th
he 5 failures. Agaain, the average mark
m was exactly y 10.0/20 earlyy in the spirit distillation, little off the higher alcohol content of the charge
appeears in the foreshots (heads). Inn continuous disttillation, howeverr, each
Question
Q 4. rectifier plate has its constant allcohol concentraation during thhe run,
conttrolling whether a particular highher alcohol conceentrates there or moves
Describe
D THRE EE different TY
YPES of test whhich can be useed to up or
o down the colum mn Unfortunatelyy, most candidatees forgot that the hydro-
detect
d any ressidual contamiination after sterilisation oof a extrractive column fo or purification off neutral spirit is also a continuouus spirit
feermentation vessel (washback), and comment on
o the merits of each distiillation, and somme discussion of tthat was expected d: as a third partt of the
method.
m [20] answwer. The fact th hat the process iss based on the ch hange of volatilitty with
ethaanol concentration should have beeen sufficient rem minder. Essentiaally the
Diploma
D candidattes should be sufficiently
s intellligent to realise that feedd is diluted to 20% abv to make tthese higher alco ohols more volatile than
“ttypes” meant tessts using differeent principles. I regarded tradittional ethaanol, so that they are removed in the heads stream m. With most off the 11
coounting of a sw wab sample or membrane-filtered
m d final rinse wate ter as attemmpts answering only two-thirds of the question, and not very well w in
different procedurres (particularly since
s the latter is much preferable)), but man ny cases, only 4 passed.
p So this w was by far the worst-answered
w quuestion
wo variations on luciferin-based bioluminescence
tw b were
w not. While there of the paper: 36% pass p rate and aveerage mark only 7.8/20, well below the
were
w other accepptable possibilitiees, these three, or one of the D DNA passs mark.
methods
m increasinngly appearing onn the market provided the majoriity of
annswers. Howeveer, the question asked a for both a brief descriptionn and Queestion 7.
coomment on the vvalue of each metthod. Simply to write the letters P PCR,
foor example, was not enough. Several candidaates suggested vvisual me the three main structural com
Nam mpounds of oak k wood and explaain the
in
nspection as one check, and they too suffered as a result. I agree tthat a imp
portance of each to the maturatioon of spirits. [2
20]
feermentation vesssel still obvioussly soiled after “cleaning” is hhighly
unnlikely to be sterrile, but it is impoossible for the huuman eye to judgge the Althhough present at up to 10% in oakk wood, tannins are not structurall in the
microbiological
m sstatus of a surfaface that appearss clean. Also, few sensse of conferring physical streength to the wood. w So celllulose,
caandidates mentiooned that sterility, in the absolute sense of that worrd, is hemmicellulose and lig gnin (approximattely 50%, 10% and a 25% respectivvely in
unnlikely to be aachieved, althouggh that would have been a uuseful bothh American and Spanish
S oak) werre the expected toopics for discussion, but
coomplement to a ggood answer. Of the 12 attempts, 5 candidates failled to certainly not in equa al detail. After thee heat treatment associated
a with tooasting
reeach the pass marrk and the averagge mark was 9.8/2 20. or charring
c of the wo
ood, the polysacccharides contributte sweetness and colour
to th
he maturing spirrit. But the widee range of degradation products of oak
Question
Q 5. lign
nin made it perfec ctly acceptable, unnavoidable in facct, to devote mostt of the
answwer to their pro oduction, and suubsequent reactio ons during matuuration.
In
n the context off batch (pot) disttillation of branddy, rum OR wh hisky,
Theere were some go ood answers withhout chemical forrmulae, but it waas only
discuss
d the effectts of stopping coollection of spiriit (a) earlier and
d (b)
fair to reward those who reproducedd correctly the strructures of the prrincipal
la
ater than standaard procedure. [20]
commpounds of the gu uaiacyl and syringgyl series of ligniin degradation prooducts.
Itt should have beeen obvious (but wasn't to everyo one) that the queestion Howwever, there were e also some extreemely poor-qualitty attempts, resullting in
cooncerned only the spirit/ tails (spiirit/feints) cut. Basically it requireed an passs rate of only 11 of
o the 18 answerss and an average markm 9.6/20.
acccount of the diistillation of ethaanol itself and congeners of diffferent
cllasses of volatillity, particularly around 60% allcohol by volum me or Queestion 8.
wherever
w that cut might normally occur.
o I was pleased that the majjority
of answers, 13 oout of 16, incluuded the expected graphs, som me of Givve an account of
o the methods for production n of London-typ
pe gin,
exxcellent quality, but I was dissappointed to seee some inexcussably starrting from puree neutral spiritt, and comparee their importan nce in
in
naccurate depictiions of one of thhe fundamental processes
p of disstilled production efficienc
cy, and quality oof the product. [2
20]
sppirit production. Some of the “exxplanations” showed a similar lacck of
un nderstanding, e.gg. by claiming low
wer % abv in spirrit from an earlierr than hough I expected
Alth d that few of thhe candidates wo ould have had prractical
normal spirit/tails cut: since an earllier cut restricts dilution
d of the iniitially expeerience of gin production, I was ssurprised that only five chose to answer
sttrong spirit, whiich is impossiblee. Some comm ment on the effeect of suchh a straightforwa ard question. Baasically, gin of thhe London style can be
chhanged feints/taiils composition on subsequent distillations
d was also prodduced either by addition of comm mercially prepared essences to purified
p
exxpected. The beest answers gave competent discussion of the alcooholic neuttral spirit, or the flavouring can bee distilled with th
he spirit. For thee latter,
sttrength of the sppirit and its conteent of the less vo olatile congenerss. So variious options exisst for adding thee “botanicals” to o the still, and for
f still
allthough this quesstion produced 6 fail marks (only y 54% pass rate!)), the operration with regarrd to cut points, etc. (the gin equ uivalent of questiion 5?)
good answers keptt the average marrk up to 10.0/20 All answers scored wellw from compettent explanationss of these points, so this
wass by far the best-answered questionn of module 2, av verage mark 14.0//20.
Question
Q 6.

Butanols
B and aamyl alcohols are more vo olatile than a low Iain
n Campbell
co
oncentration of ethanol, but lesss volatile than strrong ethanol. Julyy 2010 
Discuss
D the impliications of this situation for thee operation of bbatch
and continuous sppirit distillationss. [20]. 

DIPLOMA IN
N DISTILLING
G EXAMINATION 2010 Queestion 1.

Disccuss, with the aid of drawings as necessary, how

w the constructioon and
Module 3 – P
Process Tech
hnology operation of a pot still influences reeflux. [20]

After the irritatioon of Module 2 and

a the cereal verssion of Module 11, this For reflux, the most important
i factor iin construction of the still is the shhape of
examination wass a pleasure to mark.
m All but onee of the 17 candiidates the neck and lyne arm. All 17 candid idates answered this
t question and all but
passed (94% pass rate): 3 at graade A, 7 at B, 5 at C and 1 at D , and one passed, giving an average m mark 13.4/20. All but one prrovided
giving an impresssive average score of 64.9%. satissfactory explanations in words andd drawings of thee importance of neck

Instiitute of Brew
wing and Disstilling Exam iners Reportt 2010               27 
 

surface area and the upward or downward slope of the arm.  
“Construction” could also include sieve plates within the neck and a
“purifier” condenser refluxing from a downward-sloping lyne arm back
into the pot, but the poorer answers omitted these options. The most
important operational effect on reflux is the rate of distillation; everyone
explained that, and mentioning various other minor details gained extra
marks.
Question 2.
a) Calculate the energy required to heat 12000 litres of wash, of
specific gravity 997 kg m-3 in a copper still of empty weight 2.8
tonnes, from 33oC to distillation temperature 96oC. [8]
Specific heat of copper 0.4 kJ kg-1K-1
Specific heat of ethanol 2.4 kJ kg-1K-1
Specific heat of water 4.2 kJ kg-1K-1
Ethanol concentration in wash 6.5% by weight
Assume wash is composed of ethanol and water only, and an average
of 5% of the energy input is lost by convection and radiation.
b) Again assuming 5% heat loss by convection and radiation,
calculate the energy required to distil 4800 litres of low wines of 20%
alcohol by volume (16.2% w/w), from the wash, at an average
distillation temperature of 96oC. [6]
Density of 20% alcohol by volume 972.5 kg m-3
Latent heat of evaporation of ethanol at 96oC 837 kJ kg-1
Latent heat of evaporation of water at 96oC 2261 kJ kg-1
c) If the distillation stage lasts 5 h from the first appearance of
distillate, calculate the average weight of steam at 1.0 bar g (121oC)
required per hour during that period. Make the same assumptions
as before; also assume perfect heat transfer across the thickness of
the steam coil. [6]
Latent heat of condensation of steam at 121oC 2200 kJ kg-1
Only 12 candidates attempted these straightforward calculations. Those
who left them till last and ran out of time accounted for the 2 fail marks.
The others scored well, despite a surprising mistake in some answers of
calculating energy requirement as 5% less. It should be 5% more to
compensate for the convection and radiation losses. With so few errors,
this question scored an impressive average mark of 14.9/20.
 
Question 3.
a) Describe, with the aid of a drawing, an oil-fired fire-tube boiler
suitable for a distillery which operates pot stills, indicating its
essential ancillary equipment for safe and efficient operation. [15]
b) Calculate the stoichiometric air flow in kg s-1 for complete
combustion of sulphur-free heavy fuel oil, of composition (by
weight) 86% carbon, 14% hydrogen, with no non- combustible
residue, burnt at a rate of 100 kg h-1. Assume air composition of
oxygen 23%, nitrogen 77% by weight, and atomic weights H = 1, C =
12, N = 14 and O = 16. [5]
All 9 answers provided a drawing, seldom neat but at least showing the
main features of burner, combustion chamber, fire-tubes, safety valve,
pressure gauge and level gauge. Marks varied according to lack of other
features of boiler operation in general (e.g. a feed-water pump and a
main steam valve are useful) and safety in particular. Attempts at the
calculation also varied widely: a common reason for confused lack of
success was trying to determine the oxygen requirement for combustion
of the hydrocarbon in a single step rather than calculating for C and H
separately. So 7 passed, and the average mark was 12.1/20. Incidentally,
the atomic weight of N was a distraction since the stated composition of
the air was sufficient information.
Question 4.
Draw either a Barbet or a Coffey continuous still and explain the
advantages of your chosen design for production of potable spirit
over the basic design of single-column still. [20]
The question specified a sketch of a two-column still system and an
explanation of its advantages over a single column, so no matter how
good an illustrated account was given of the Barbet or Coffey system in
isolation, without the requested comparison it was impossible to score a
good mark. Both designs share many of the general advantages of two
28           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
linked columns, but Barbet and Coffey stills each have specific benefits,
among which are more efficient wash heating and rectifier reflux in the
Coffey, which almost everyone chose as their model. So comment on both
general and specific aspects was expected. All 15 answers scored at least a
pass mark, and the average was 12.7/20.
Question 5.
a) Give an account of the polluting characteristics of the principal
waste-water streams from the fermentation, distillation and packaging
operations of rum OR whisky produced in pot stills. [12]
b) For each waste stream you describe, briefly explain one possible
method to reduce the adverse effects on the environment or the effluent
treatment plant. [8]
For part (a) this meant, as an absolute minimum, the spent residues remaining
in the two stills and rinses and spent cleaning products for the three specified
stages. Of course a good answer included other contaminants as well, e.g.
lubricants of packaging lines. This was one of the least popular questions of
the paper, with only 9 attempts including 2 fails; average mark 11.1/20.
Question 6.
Outline the principle of operation of suitable instruments for remote
measurement of each of the following (a different instrument for each
purpose). Also, for each, briefly discuss a possible application to
automatic control of a relevant stage of distillery operation.
a) Temperature of a process liquid
b) Alcoholic strength of spirit
c) Flow rate of a process liquid
d) Volume of spirit in a receiver vessel.
This question was intended to mean “Describe an electronic instrument for
each of the specified purposes”, and I thought that was obvious. Surely they
had to be electronic for automatic control. Despite several claims to the
contrary, a hydrometer cannot provide automatic control over spirit
reduction. However, almost all of the 15 candidates provided competent
accounts, usually with sketches, of four instruments (more in some answers,
but that was unnecessary) to explain how they work and how they can control
the specified aspects of distillery operation. Although one person failed, the
average mark was a commendable 13.7/20.
Question 7.
a) Give an account of the origins of floc and haze in matured spirit
beverages. [5]
b) With the aid of a flow diagram, describe the procedure immediately
before bottling for eliminating these faults. [10]
c) What preventative measures can be taken earlier in the production
process to minimize these faults? [5]
All of the 16 answers discussed long-chain fatty acids and esters and most
mentioned, with varying ability to identify specific types, the haze-forming
compounds which are extracted during maturation. But I was surprised how
many failed to identify Ca++ and Mg++ salts as the principal cause of floc. For
part (b) both the diagram and a separate description were expected of the
procedures for reduction and chill-filtration, although some astute candidates
fulfilled that requirement by including the explanation in each of the stages of
a flow diagram. Finally for (c), the main precautions I had in mind were
careful control of foreshots (heads) distillation and de-ionisation of water
supplies for reduction at maturation or bottling and most answers mentioned
both. So there was only one (marginal) fail and the average mark was 13/20.
Question 8.
Discuss the significance of the flash point of aqueous alcohol solutions,
and the flammable and explosive concentrations of alcohol vapour in air,
to the production of potable spirits. [20]
Only 9 candidates answered this question, with variable results.
“Production” of spirits was meant to imply all stages of the process where
fire or explosion risk exists, not just distillation, and the best answers gave
very comprehensive accounts of hazards and safety precautions throughout
distillation, bulk storage, maturation, transport, etc.. By a strange coincidence
the statistics are the same as for question 5: 7 passes and 2 fails; average
mark 11.1/20.
Iain Campbell
July 2010
 

DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE PACKAGING EXAMINATION  
2010
2010 has been the third year for this examination, with candidates sitting
all three of the modules.
Each Unit of the Diploma in Packaging was assessed in three
components, viz. assignment (30%), short answer questions (35%) and
one long answer question from a choice of two (35%). The Unit scores
were then combined to give an overall mark and grade for the Module.
As with the Diploma in Brewing, an overall pass in the Diploma is only
awarded when all three Modules have been successfully completed.
10 candidates sat Module One and achieved a pass rate of 70%, 11
candidates sat Module Two and achieved a pass rate of 91% and 8
candidates sat Module 3 with a 100% pass rate. As a result of the
combination of the results of the last three years 11 candidates also
completed and were awarded their Diploma in Packaging.
Whilst detailed commentary for each unit section is given in the report
below there were some common themes which need to be brought to the
attention of candidates.
The overall standard of the Assignments continued to show a slight
improvement again this year compared to last, although some areas
continue to be regular issues. The key areas looked for were relevance to
brief, quality of discussion, range of references accessed and appropriate
use of them, extent of analysis and evaluation, comment and originality.
The assignment focus is designed to allow the candidate to gain clear,
practical knowledge of their plant and how it operates – however
evidence of this was often lacking from some submissions. The length
and depth of the assignment was a challenge for some candidates – with
some assignments being overly brief and other producing a reference
tome for the examiner. The use of references and acknowledgements at
the end of the assignment is an area which generally most candidates
could still do to improve upon and is something which is highlighted in
the Examiners report each year.
The short answer questions were a mix of multiple-choice, short answer,
multiple answer, calculation and labelling questions which were
designed to test the candidate’s breadth of knowledge of the overall
syllabus. This section showed a slight decline in results compared with
previous years and with the calculation questions being a particular
challenge for a number of candidates.
The long answer question section required the candidate to choose to
answer one question from two. These questions were set at a similar
level to those used in the Diploma in Brewing and are designed to test a
candidate’s in depth knowledge of a particular area of the syllabus.
These questions clearly showed which candidates had only a superficial
knowledge of their chosen subject. Good candidates were able to
provide some excellent answers, but there were clear issues with some of
the knowledge levels for candidates in specific units – namely bottle
manufacture, bottle filling, keg filling, World Class Manufacturing and
gas calculations.
Ruth Bromley
July 2010
Module 1:
Unit 1 – Packaging Theory and Materials
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
past, present and future manufacturing processes, specifications and
development options available for a primary packaging material.
Selecting a primary packaging material of your choice, obtain the
specification used for the procurement of this material and explain
how the specification has developed over the last 10 years.
Discuss the appropriateness of the current specification of your
chosen material in line with both the performance of your
production facility and the economic environment of your country.   consumer preference and customer purchasing requirements.
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               29
Discuss the options available to enhance the material in the future and
the potential benefits and risks that these would bring both to line and
business performance.
11 candidates submitted assignments for this unit, with the average mark
achieved being 60% and the overall marks ranging from 27% up to 87%.
The weaker submissions were generally very short and were lacking in the
detail required to demonstrate understanding of the assignment. The better
assignments included a wider range of background information and detail
which then underpinned the investigation work around the material
developments.
As the assignment allowed candidates to chose their primary packaging
material a wide variety of answers were received which were generally
tailored to a candidate’s preferred packaging format. The stronger reports
started with a historical overview of the material before moving on to cover
it’s more recent developments in the market place along with their root
causes – price, availability, technological developments, transportation
implications etc. The detail surrounding the material specification and its
links to the local production facility and economic climate were only covered
well by a few candidates. This section should have covered how the material
is used (returnable or single use), its ease of delivery, storage and handling at
the facility, any production requirements (cleaning, stock levels, and order
frequency) and in the best cases was supported by relevant diagrams and
photographs. What was not required was an in depth review of the actual
material specification and process required to manufacture the material –
these additional details generally meant that the candidate’s assignment was
far too long and did not follow the question asked.
The final part of the assignment required the candidate to consider options for
the material in the future, with the better answers covering material costs,
security of supply, local country implications, environmental impact
assessments and also details behind what these changes would mean for the
production line e.g. performance levels, capital requirements, manning levels
and technical implications. This was only completed well by a couple of
candidates, with the rest only giving this a cursory mention and therefore
these reports were lacking in their overall discussion and conclusions.
(b) Short Answer Questions
10 candidates sat the exam with the average mark being 20/35, and scores
ranging from 14 up to 27. The questions were designed to test the breadth of
the candidate’s knowledge of the syllabus and it was disappointing to see the
lack of knowledge around the bottle manufacturing process and also the
design and operation of kegs and spears. The calculation questions were also
poorly answered throughout the paper.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 : Can Manufacture
Compare and contrast the design features of steel and aluminium cans.
[10]
List the pros and cons of cans over other types of primary packaging
materials. [15]
Draw a flow diagram of the can manufacture process labelling each key
stage of the process. [10]
This question was not popular and was only answered by 1 of the candidates,
who did have a reasonable attempt at it.
The first section on can design was looking for the candidate to compare and
contrast the design features of steel and aluminium cans. A full answer on
this would have considered the standard parameters (cost, weight,
recyclability) before moving on to the manufacturing process used, energy
requirements, material requirements (lacquer, paint application) and transport
to name but a few. The examiner was looking for a clear comparison
between the two materials which highlighted the differences and explained
why these were important.
The second part of the question was looking for the candidate to compare
cans with all other primary packaging formats e.g. bottles, PET and kegs.
The answer provided was limited purely to bottles, but should have been
expanded to highlight the different aspects of the other packaging formats.
Areas which could have been included in this comparison would have been
cost, quality, shelf life, transportation requirements, market demand,
 

The final section of the question should have allowed the candidate to  
walk the examiner through the process of can manufacture, using a
simply labelled flow diagram of the process. This should have covered
the material of choice and its format of supply as well as the can design
(2 piece or 3 piece), before moving on to describe the process. For a 2
piece can the key stages should have been:-
a. To get from material to coated can
Cupper – Bodymaker – Washer – Drying Oven – Coater & Oven –
Decorator & Oven
b. To get from coated can to decorated can
Spray Process & IBO – Necker/Flanger – Testing – Inspection &
Rejection – Palletization
 
Question 2 : Bottle Manufacture
Name and describe the three main processes used for bottle making.
[12]
Briefly describe the steps which should be taken to prevent corrosion
occurring under the bottle crown. [4]
List the packaging materials which are used on a returnable bottle
line, stating whether they are primary, secondary or tertiary
materials. [8]
Explain how the design of the bottle labelling contributes to the
marketing. [11]
This question was attempted by 9 of the 10 candidates, with 1 excellent
answer, 3 reasonable ones and 5 which were poor and suggested a
fundamental lack of knowledge in this area.
The first section on bottle making was generally poorly answered, with
very few candidates clearly identifying the 3 bottle making processes as
Narrow Neck Press & Blow (NNPB), Blow & Blow, and Press & Blow.
Each process should have described how the glass is formed and the type
of bottles produced by the method, with best answers using brief
diagrams to support their description and listing the advantages and
disadvantages of each of the processes. A couple of candidates
misinterpreted the question and attempted to describe the process of glass
making not bottle manufacture which gained them no marks for this part
of the question.
The steps to prevent corrosion were again poorly answered by the
majority of candidates. The examiner was looking for acknowledgement
of the effect of the materials used in crown manufacture, combined with
the line design (temperature controls and air blowers) as well as the
options for chemical treatment of the pasteurizer water. The majority of
candidates only addressed one or two of the areas, with only the best
candidate clearly identifying the root cause and potential prevention
measures.
The third section was looking for the candidate to list the materials used
on a returnable bottle line and to categorise them into primary, secondary
and tertiary formats. This should have been an easy task, but produced a
variation in results. Acknowledgement of some of the differing
returnable formats by country was expected e.g. crates or cardboard
boxes but was not provided by any candidate.
 
The final section regarding bottle labelling was designed to allow the
candidate to explain the different aspects and use of the labels. Good
answers addressed the main marketing uses – through colours, designs,
types of material (paper, foil, PSL) as well as the legal and consumer
information - ABV, BBD, company address, importer/distributor
information, health information and alcohol units. Again this was
generally not completed well by candidates with very limited recognition
to the materials used and their impact on the consumer.
Ruth Bromley
July 2010
Module 1:
Unit 2 – Beer Appreciation
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
fermentation process in a brewery within their company.  pasteurization processes used in a small pack operation.
30           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
After visiting the brewery which supplies beer to your packaging line,
describe the design and operation of a fermentation vessel. Explain how
the design features of this vessel affect the control of key fermentation
success criteria.
Explain the advantages and disadvantages of this design compared with
other fermenter designs available in the industry.
What recommendations for improvements would you make for both the
fermentation vessels and fermentation area in the brewery you have
visited and how would these impact on the final product quality.
Candidates displayed generally good knowledge of cylindro-conical FV
design, but some papers omitted details of CIP and pressure/vacuum fittings,
critical to hygiene, plant security, and health and safety. One candidate
omitted coverage of how the FV would be cooled, a core requirement.
Suggested improvements included good ideas such as faster fermentations,
increased detergent recovery during CIP, and improved CO2 detection in
enclosed spaces. However, most papers were short on how the improvements
would be made; These details could have earned more marks.
(b) Short Answer Questions
The strongest candidate achieved 31 marks out of 35 with the weakest
achieving just 15.
The questions on which candidates performed the poorest involved
evaporation calculation, high gravity beer dilution calculation, and
differentiation of process aids from process additives.
 
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 : Fermentation
Draw a graphical diagram of the progress of a fermentation indicating
changes in temperature, gravity, yeast concentration and pH. [20]
Explain the five most important factors to ensure a healthy fermentation.
[15]
2 candidates answered this question; 1 omitted temperature from the
fermentation graph, and the other showed yeast concentration being constant.
However, other parameters such as gravity, pH, and diacetyl were shown
correctly.
On success criteria, answers were less complete, 1 candidate citing only good
yeast hygiene, and the other candidate identifying hygiene, oxygen, and
temperature, but omitting FAN and pitch rate.
Question 2 : Brewing Materials and Process
Draw a flow diagram of the brewing process from raw material intake
through to fermentation. [20]
For each process stage, discuss the factors which influence flavour
stability in packaged beer. [15]
Six candidates attempted this question. Diagrams were of a good standard,
covering milling, weighing, mashing, wort separation, boiling, clarification
and cooling, but 2 candidates omitted malt dressing and wort
aeration/oxygenation.
Answers on flavour stability were less satisfactory. The risks of unwanted
DMS were mostly identified, but issues such as leaching, and mash oxidation
were omitted.
Dave John
July 2010
Module 1:
Unit 3 – Beer Preparation, Micro Stabilisation for
Packaging, including Filling Operation
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show the candidate’s knowledge of the
 
 
  

Following the beer as it moves from the bright beer tank through the  
packaging hall and ending in a sealed small package of your choice,
identify the points where potential microbiological hazards/risks
exist. Explain what these risks are and discuss in detail how they are
minimized or prevented at each point.
From a mechanistic perspective, briefly compare membrane filtration
with depth filtration. [5]
Explain the terms “nominal” versus “absolute” for describing the rating
of a depth filter. [10]

Describe how the design, operation and control of either a tunnel Five candidates chose this question and four passed. Successful candidates
pasteurizer or flash (bulk) pasteurizer of your choice achieves the averaged 71% of the marks on this question with one candidate scoring 97%.
principles of thermal inactivation of micro-organisms.
In the first section the examiner was looking for the candidate to describe the
Based on the information gained from the study, recommend and “mechanisms” of depth filtration, that is, inertial, directional, diffusional, and
detail any improvements would you introduce to the line to improve charge effects. The second part should have been straightforward –
the final quality of the packaged beer. membrane filtration is an absolute filtration whereby material builds up on
the membrane surface and not within the filtration material as in depth
There were 10 submissions for this Unit. This assignment asked filtration. The third part had mixed answers. Candidates are urged to see the
candidates to focus on microbial hazards and risks, yet one candidate revision notes on nominal filtration ratings, their subjectivity and their
focused almost exclusively on non-microbial risks such as oxygen pick differentiation from absolute ratings.
up, dilution, colloidal hazes, etc. All but one of the candidates performed
well on this assignment. The best answers simply followed beer Thomas Shellhammer
beginning with the bright beer tank to the filler discussing issues related July 2010
to CIP, improper sampling techniques, contaminated carbon dioxide
systems, leaking pumps. Likewise, filler operations included attention to
CIP frequency, the quality of the carbon dioxide, bottle cleaning Module 1:
operations, jetting water quality, and crown storage. The pasteurization Unit 4 – Quality and Hygiene
component of the assignment asked candidates to use of the basic
principles of thermal inactivation of micro-organisms in their discussion
(a) Assignment
of beer pasteurization. This component was missing in many of the
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
candidates’ answers. The operation and control of both tunnel
impact of microbiological beer spoilage organisms and the control measures
pasteurizers and flash pasteurizers was explained well by most
used within a packaging line.
candidates.
Describe the risks of microbiological infection encountered in a
(b) Short Answer Questions
packaging line with which you are familiar. Explain the types of
Seven of the ten candidates passed this section of the exam. For the
organism which might be encountered and what their effect on the beer
passing candidates, the strongest candidate attained 91% correct answers
would be.
while the weakest only 69% correct.
Describe the control measures that are in place to detect, reduce and
The multiple choice questions examined candidates knowledge of the
prevent infection and how this information is recorded, trended and
entire breadth of the syllabus. All candidates could explain how to
used.
transfer beer without oxygen pick up, test crown seals, and new proper
ranges of PU treatment for commercial beer. The topics with which
Based on the information gained from the study, recommend and detail
candidates struggled were sanitizer concentrations, methods of water de-
any improvements you would introduce to the line to reduce or eradicate
aeration, basic principles of thermal inactivation of microorganisms, and
future infections.
membrane integrity testing. When asked to draw a temperature/position
diagram for a tunnel pasteurizer, many candidates did not grasp the
All candidates displayed good knowledge of beer spoilage organisms, and the
concept that heat will move from hot to cold, hence in the heating section
beer spoilage effect they can have. Most candidates displayed a good
the water stream should be hotter than the bottles/cans and in the cooling
understanding of reviewing microbiological trends, but there was little
section the water should be cooler than the bottles/cans. Most candidates
coverage of day-to-day checks such as CIP records, and pasteuriser
could articulate the purpose of a widget but very few correctly presented
temperatures, and there was little attention to a sample schedule.
the principle upon which the widget works.
Answers on suggested improvements were varied, from no ideas to a blanket
(c) Long Answer Questions
‘5S’ approach. A model answer would have included e.g. improved control
of CIP parameters, improved hygiene of incoming beer, consistent pasteuriser
Question 1 – Bottle Filling performance, and planned maintenance.
Using a tabular format, compare and contrast the filling operation
(b) Short Answer Questions
(from container infeed to bottle sealing) for a short tube versus a The strongest candidate achieved 29 marks out of 35 with the weakest
long tube bottle filler. [18]
achieving just 6 (2 candidates scored < 20).
Describe the various means of delivering a controlled volume of The questions causing the most difficulty included the scope of ISO 9000,
product to a small pack container. [17]
calculation of Right First Time, bright beer pump type, and the definition of
analytical precision.
Four candidates chose this question one passed marginally the other three
did not pass.
(c) Long Answer Questions
The first part asked the candidates to compare the bottle filling sequence
Question 1 : Plant Hygiene
between short and long tub fillers. It was surprising to read that some
thought these two types of filler were the same, or that type of evacuation
Describe a procedure to ensure all cleaning regimes are performed to the
and filling sequence was not characterized as being different. The second
required standard of cleanliness, at the required frequency, indicating
part of the question simply asked candidates to discuss how fill volume is
the distribution of responsibilities within the packaging team. [20]
controlled – for example using the vent tube height, electronic
flowmeters, or dispensing controlled volumes from a measuring cylinder.
Describe three common microbiological methods available to assess
hygiene in packaging lines, including typical media, and conditions for
Question 2 – Filtration
incubation. [15]
Describe the mechanisms by which solid particles are removed from 3 candidates answered this question. One candidate described only the
a liquid stream via depth filtration. [20] 
operation of a tunnel pasteuriser. Other candidates provided more

Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               31 
 
 

comprehensive answers e.g. maintaining a thorough cleaning/CIP  
regime, adequate planned maintenance, adequate training, and checking
of records and trends, with follow-up on any corrective action.
Question 2 : Product Quality & Safety
(b) Short Answer Questions
11 candidates sat the exam with the average mark being 20/35, and scores
ranging from 14 up to 26. The questions were designed to test the breadth of
the candidate’s knowledge of the syllabus and it was disappointing to see the
lack of knowledge around can filling and seaming as well as bottle labelling.

Describe the analytical sampling processes required for a selected
packaging line. [20]
Explain the key areas of concern identified by a HACCP survey on
the line and their influence on food safety. [15]
While no answer covered all sampling checks, all candidates covered
most of them, including analytical, microbiological, visual, and
legislative inline and offline checks and analyses.
Answers on HACCP were more varied. Most candidates correctly
described the elements of a HACCP study procedure, but omitted the
specific critical control points in a line (e.g. inspection of empty
containers, checks for residual detergent, glass register).
Dave John
July 2010
Module 2:
Unit 5 – Small Pack Handling Operations
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
operation and layout of a small packaging line.
Having studied the operation of a small pack line of your choice,
provide a detailed overview of the line and identify the key areas of
personnel and engineering interface that affect the final product
quality.
Identify and review each of the waste streams on the above line.
Detail how each of the key areas could be reduced (or ideally
minimised) and quantify the possible financial savings from each of
these.
12 candidates submitted this assignment with the average mark being
55%, and the range being between 20% and 70%. The majority of
assignments that were submitted were too long and overly detailed in
areas which were not requested by the question.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 – Glass Bottling Health & Safety
Describe the key areas of Health & Safety risks along with their methods
of prevention or mitigation which have to be addressed when designing a
glass bottling line. [30]
Two candidates attempted this question – one submission was a reasonable
attempt but the other one was poor.
In order to complete this question correctly, candidates needed to consider a
variety of different areas of potential risk within the line design. A full
answer should have described a wide variety of topics including the line
layout, people, transport, machine operation & maintenance, CIP processes
and the use of chemicals. For each of these topics candidates should have
been able to highlight the potential risks at each stage, before moving on to
highlight the various methodologies which could be employed to either
prevent or minimise the risk levels.
The examiners were looking for both the identification of the different risk
areas – along with an acknowledgement of the differing processes which can
be used to assess and quantify the risk at each stage. The mitigation or
prevention of the risk should have then considered the full spectrum of tools
which can be employed in this process including the use of standard
procedures for the operation, maintenance and isolation of the equipment
along with the relevant safe systems of work. Personnel training and
protective equipment should have also featured in the descriptions, along
with reference to the application of the risk assessment in the mitigation
process. As the question also referred to the line design process, then
reference to the use of the correct standards and materials was also expected.
Question 2 – Returnable Bottling & Food Hygiene Integrity
Describe with the aid of a diagram the operation of a bottle filler.
Ensure each section is clearly labelled. [15]
Explain the food hygiene precautions which must be taken on a
returnable bottling line between the decrater and pasteurizer infeed. [10]

List all line checks that are made between the labeller and the palletizer
The first section was designed to allow the candidate to select a small
pack line and then carry out a review of all the different interface points to verify the product integrity before it is despatched to market. [10]
which could affect the final product quality. A good answer would have
Nine of the candidates attempted this question, with one very good answer,
started with ensuring a clean line at start up, with considerations for
seven reasonable attempts and one poor submission.
timings of CIP and housekeeping, followed by quality checks on the beer
arriving at the filler prior to production start up. This would have then
The description of the operation of the bottle filler was generally well
followed the packaged beer through the production line highlighting the
delivered by the candidates, but the supporting diagrams were generally of a
various checks on the pack along the way, including fill levels, sterility
much lower standard. Many diagrams were missing labelling and most failed
or pasteurization units, materials used, packaging formation and final
to link the diagram to the description provided. In questions of this style the
pack inspection. Personnel interfaces should have explained the roles of
diagram is fundamental to the answer and should be supporting the candidate
the operator or technician at each stage in the checks, as well as how they
with the operational description – rather than the other way round.
obtain their reference data information. Engineering interfaces should
have included machine performance, maintenance requirements
The food hygiene precautions required on a returnable bottling line were
(preventative, planned and breakdown) and overall line monitoring. The
generally less well addressed by the majority of candidates. A good answer
latter was generally missing from most of the assignments.
should have addressed the potential issues on both the bottles and the crates.
Food hygiene risks are any risks which can put the consumer or customer at
Once the line had been fully described the second half of the assignment
risk of harm, therefore a good answer needed to address bottle and crate
moved on to the different waste streams at each stage in the line. Most
washing, foreign body removal, broken glass and chemical cleansing along
of the answers focussed on beer and materials loss and line performance
with the relevant checks that can be performed to ensure food hygiene
impacts, although not all candidates linked these back to the actual costs
standards are maintained.
to the operation. Energy and gas monitoring was very rarely covered by
candidates, although these can be key financial loss areas within a small
For the line checks the majority of candidates focused only on the packaging
pack operation. One candidate provided an excellent description of a
checks – barcode, correct materials, best before date, etc – with many
waste reduction project which they had been involved in at their brewery
completely ignoring any final package checks on the actual product itself.
– and this was very pleasing to read. Factual details of each step of the
investigation and process were provided as part of the submission along
with the savings for each step.  Ruth Bromley
July 2010

32           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 

Module 2:  
Unit 6a – Large Container Packaging Operations for
Kegs
a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
operation of a large container keg packaging line of their choice, and
how it provides a product suitable for both customer and consumer.
Having studied the operation of a keg line of your choice, provide a
detailed overview of each of the cleaning operations performed on
the line and identify the key quality reasons behind each of them.
You should include container and plant cleaning as well as
housekeeping activities within the scope of your answer.
Finally you should identify how the above operations impact on line
performance, and how they should be accounted for when planning
the line.
This assignment was generally only answered to an average standard by
the majority of 12 candidates who submitted assignments. A number of
the assignments were lacking evidence that the candidate had spent any
practical time studying the operation of an actual keg line.
A good answer would have started by detailing the type of production
undertaken on the line to set the scene for the cleaning detail which
should have then followed. All of the cleaning operations required for
the line should have been included, but too many candidates focused
purely on keg washing and filling plant CIP only, with many candidates
failing to include any information regarding the cleaning of the beer
supply mains and tanks or the plant housekeeping.
Each step of the cleaning process should have covered the rationale for
the cleaning along with details of the equipment used and the relevant
times, temperatures and chemicals. Better answers also included the
methods of monitoring these processes, details of the checks undertaken
to ensure that the process had been completed and also safety
implications and precautions which must be adhered to during the
various stages. Information on the housekeeping requirements for the
plants varied tremendously between the submissions and where
candidates had clearly spent time on the line understanding its operation
this was very clearly reflected in the submission.
The detail of the cleaning operations on the planning of the line was
generally very poorly attempted by the majority of candidates. This
section should have recognised the cleaning requirements for the overall
weekly schedule, as well as changeover implications, crewing
requirements and verification of the task having been completed. A few
candidates referenced their local standards for production but this was
not something which was widely recognised.
Some of the assignments submitted dedicated too much of the content of
their assignment to listing cleaning tasks rather than explaining what
these were and how these were carried out. If necessary these schedules
can be placed as appendices to the submission and should not form the
main part of the submission.
(b) Short Answer Questions
11 candidates sat the exam with the average mark being 21/35, and
scores ranging from 16 up to 24. The main areas which challenged the
candidates were around plant cleaning regimes, but the knowledge of keg
filling systems was also very poor. Again calculation questions were
generally poorly answered by candidates.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 : Keg Labelling & Palletization
Compare and contrast two different systems which can be used for
the palletizing or unitizing of kegs. [15]
List the details which must be included on a keg label in order to
comply with legislative requirements. [10]
Describe the properties of the different materials used for labelling
or coding kegs. [10]  you would propose which would contribute to improving the overall line
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               33
Four candidates attempted this question, with one excellent answer, one
reasonable answer, one poor answer and one completely blank submission.
In order to compare and contrast the palletizing systems the candidates
needed to explain the clear advantages and disadvantages of the two systems
along with the descriptions of the systems. The best comparison was done
using a tabular layout and this allowed the candidate to clearly demonstrate
each of the different points.
The legislative requirements for keg labelling require the container to display
a number of items of information including the product name and alcohol
content as well as the manufacturer or packaging company details. Better
candidates also identified that the legislation varied by country and that some
countries also requires health warnings on the keg label.
The section on keg labelling or coding was looking for the candidate to
identify the ever increasing number of mechanisms being used to label keg
containers. These include labels (paper or plastic), inks, barcodes and
transponders to name the main items. A full answer would have then
included information on how the materials were either removed or re-coded
each time the keg was refilled.
Question 2 : Keg Filling
Draw a flow diagram of all of the key items of plant and equipment
required on a keg filling line, including all relevant machine speeds.
State any assumptions made in terms of keg size and despatch format.
[18]
Explain the key areas of loss in performance (beer, material or plant
efficiency) that would be expected at each stage in the process, including
typical performance figures within the answer. [17]
Seven candidates attempted this question with the standard of answers
ranging from poor to average.
The flow diagram of the keg line should have been a simple diagram which
identified each of the main process steps and line equipment through the keg
filling line. The labelling of the line should have then included naming the
various stages and pieces of equipment, along with adding in their key
descriptors and line ratings. Whilst every keg line can be different the
principle of the V-graphs should have been clear from the line ratings – and
this was missing in the majority of cases. The majority of candidates failed
to list any assumptions – which should have included at least the keg size,
palletization formats, manning and shift patterns in order to support the
information provided in the diagram.
For the second part of the question the majority of candidates focused purely
on the line performance or efficiency loss mainly due to breakdowns.
However a full answer would consider this factor alongside slow running,
beer loss, energy usage and also general wastage of materials used within the
total production.
Ruth Bromley
July 2010
Module 2:
Unit 7 – Packaging Line Design and Performance with
Capacity Planning
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
rationale behind line design and efficiency control.
For a packaging line with which you are familiar, describe the output
rates of each major component and of all conveyorage linking them.
Explain the significance of each of these rates and also how the line
efficiency is measured.
Describe the data which is available to identify efficiency loss and explain
how the data is recorded, categorized, analyzed and used to drive
improvement.
Identify from your study the details of any recommendations of changes
efficiency.
 

Generally this was a well answered assignment.  
All candidates demonstrated a good knowledge of the V-graph principle,
and the use of variable conveyor speeds to control accumulation.
Efficiency calculations differed slightly (e.g. counting total containers
filled, v total palletised in-specification), depending on company
preferences, but all calculations were sound. Most candidates gave good
details of management review and response to efficiency data.
Most candidates suggested continuous improvement tools such as
SMED, and a few gave specific areas for improvement. Particularly
commendable was recognition that line efficiency issues include people
performance as well as plant performance.
(b) Short Answer Questions
The strongest candidate achieved 33 marks out of 35 with the weakest
achieving 27.
Most questions were well-answered, but those on V-graph calculation
and defining the initials ‘MIS’ proved to be hurdles.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 : Line Layouts
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of straight line, comb,
and ‘U’ shaped line layouts. [20]
Selecting one type of line layout, explain what practical actions could
be taken to minimize the impact of three of the disadvantages
identified. [15]
Clear diagrams demonstrated good understanding of line v comb layouts,
and descriptions displayed understanding of the material flow issues
associated with each design. However, improvement ideas were
generally thin. Good answers would have covered areas such as
changeover material plans, designated pallet locations etc.
Question 2 : Line Operations
Draw a flow diagram of a can or bottle line and indicate the manned
positions on the line. [15]
Summarise the duties carried out at each position. [10]
How could the efficiency of these positions be measured? [10]
Line diagrams were mostly of a very high standard.
Coverage of managing the line was more variable (marks ranging from
30% to 80%), Calculation and review of line performance data was
strong, but measurement and review of team members performance, and
managing deployment, was only thinly covered.
Dave John
July 2010
Module 2:
Unit 8 – WCM, Maintenance, Safety, Utilities and
Environment
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
role of plant maintenance in the overall operational performance of a
packaging line.
Describe the maintenance policy for your packaging operation.
Explain how maintenance is currently carried out and the
philosophical basis for this approach. Provide details to illustrate the
effectiveness of the maintenance (this could include for example
plant availability, line efficiency / OEE, maintenance costs per unit
of output, safety performance, quality performance, spares strategy,
operator / technician / craftsmen ratios etc).
34           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
Carry out a gap analysis to compare your maintenance performance to
“World Class”.
Draw conclusions and make recommendations for future maintenance
policy.
Of the 11 submissions 7 achieved a rating of good, 3 satisfactory and just 1
poor. Within the good category one candidate produced a truly excellent, near
model submission.
The majority of candidates produced clear, well written answers with a good
overall structure and plan. One submission was overlong and one extremely
short. The better candidates skilfully used diagrams and well chosen screen
shots to illustrate their submissions.
Current maintenance policies and practices were generally well covered with
many differing examples of how maintenance effectiveness is monitored. A
number of candidates demonstrated that RCM, TPM and 5S are variously
being utilised in their companies in the early stages of the journey to world
class performance.
The concept of “World Class” performance was judged in a variety of ways
with several candidates believing world class performance was already being
achieved! The better candidates had a clear vision of what world class means
and were able to illustrate their understanding with tangible examples of true
high performance including advanced team working, autonomous
maintenance practices, packaging line OEEs around 90%, exemplary quality
and safety figures etc. Their gap analysis was, as a result, objective and
realistic. Two candidates carried out their gap analysis using a SWOT
approach which assisted in drawing their conclusions. Poorer candidates had
no clear description of what world class performance actually means. Hence,
their analysis tended to describe inadequacies of current performance rather
than a true gap analysis to a world class standard. One candidate, in
describing world class performance, nevertheless maintained that “equipment
breakdowns are inevitable” which undermined most of his/her arguments.
The examiner must assume this candidate chooses not to travel by plane!
Having described the goal of world class performance few candidates
explained the short, medium and long term financial implications of striving
to achieve these lofty goals. Candidates could, perhaps, have developed plant
“Life Cycle Strategy” which is key in achieving high performance. Few
candidates ventured beyond the brewing industry to research and truly
understand world class performance – references were disappointingly thin
on this point.
The better candidates had sound, objective conclusions based on their gap
analysis with realistic recommendations including well judged specifics. For
several candidates, conclusions and recommendations were sound and
pragmatic but clearly aimed at dramatically improving current ways of
working rather than moving to world class at this stage.
(b) Short Answer Questions
For the ten multiple choice questions, the number of candidates’ correct
answers ranged from 5 to an excellent 10. The range was from 3 to a very
good 9 for the ten short answer questions. Two candidates achieved 17 out of
a possible 20 correct answers.
The multiple choice questions on health and safety competence,
environmental impact assessment, water sterilization, properties of carbon
dioxide, refrigeration cycle and key aims of maintenance were generally
answered correctly. The majority of the remaining multiple choice questions
showed some weakness with no pattern to the answers. Disappointingly, two
candidates thought that compression and expansion are constant pressure
processes in the vapour compression refrigeration cycle!
The short answer questions were handled much better this year. Almost all
the candidates provided correct answers to Q4 on the definition of risk, Q6 on
the principal gas causing global warming, Q8 on the two components of
liquid effluent, Q13 on the essential safety device for a bulk gas storage tank,
Q18 on examples of condition monitoring and Q20 on the five elements of
5S. Less than half knew that an event which might have caused fatal or
serious injury is known as a near miss (Q2) and a definition of an audit
(Q16). Question 15, only answered correctly by 5 candidates, required simple
explanations of the four elements of the Deming cycle, not simply a list of the
elements. Disappointingly only one candidate knew that organisation was the
third key element of a Health and Safety Policy (Q1).
 

(c) Long Answer Questions  
Question 1 – Health and Safety
Describe the types of Health and Safety statistics which companies
collect. [15]
Explain how these statistics can assist in improving Health and
Safety performance. [20]
Five candidates attempted this question and produced answers with
marks ranging from 20 to 25.
Health and Safety is a strength for most candidates and apparent in the
submissions here.
The question asked for a description of the types of Health and Safety
statistics which companies collect – NOT a simple list. The better
candidates produced descriptions of a whole range of statistics (up to 17
types) including:
 the number of days since the last accident / injury (also versus
record)
 the number of lost time accidents / injuries
 lost time accident frequency rate
 the number of reportable accidents
 near miss reporting
 near miss investigations and close-out rate
 safety audits carried out
 safety surveys carried out
 safety training carried out
 accidents by type
 risk assessments completed
 PPE usage / compliance
 accident investigation clear-up performance
 safety suggestions
Several candidates explained the importance of analysing accidents by
type to ensure the correct focus on problem areas (e.g. cuts; slips, trips
and falls; falls from height; chemical; impact to body part; manual
handling; individuals becoming trapped etc). In addition statistics
relating to the completion of risk assessments can ensure that resources
are directed appropriately.
Explanations of how these statistics can assist in improving Health and
Safety performance were variable. Better answers emphasised the
importance of trend information to produce continuous improvement. In
addition step-wise improvements can often be secured through
behavioural change as a result of ongoing safety training, the carrying
out of surveys and audits, ensuring the use of PPE etc. Most candidates
recognised how reacting to near miss reports in a timely fashion can
introduce modifications and / or changes in practices and procedures.
Poorer responses failed to recognise the key importance of completing
risk assessments. Statistics relating to their completion can ensure that
resources, both financial and human, are directed appropriately
particularly where risks are quantified
Question 2 – World Class Manufacturing
What is meant by the concept of “World Class” performance? [10]
Explain the major elements regarded as essential to achieve “World
Class” status. [25]
Six of the eleven candidates answered this question. Answers were
generally disappointing with no outstanding submission. Marks ranged
from 13 to 19. The examiner had anticipated a broad approach in tune
with the title of the Unit. However, several candidates interpreted the
question very narrowly and considered only packaging line performance.
The examiner adjusted his marking to allow for this interpretation but
nevertheless found the submissions falling short of expectations.
As with this year’s assignment candidates seemed confused between best
in class and world class. World Class performance is what the truly
excellent companies constantly aspire to achieve but never quite reach
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               35
(i.e. an aim). As the targets are implicitly always moving as bench- marking
practices improve, such companies are subject to constant change. Examples
of true world class performance are usually quoted from the car industry,
chemicals, pharmaceuticals and electronics – clearly there will be others! For
the drinks industry the closest examples are probably some non-alcoholic so
called soft drinks operations. A number of candidates considered that their
operations are already world class which came as some surprise to the
examiner.
A non-exhaustive list of examples of world class performance could include:
 near zero accidents
 near zero quality defects
 near zero lost time
 near 100% on time delivery record
 leader in sustainable development
 minimal environmental impact
 minimal waste
 zero waste to landfill i.e. 100% re-use or recycling
 bench-mark costs per unit of output
 visible corporate social responsibility policy
Candidates produced a series of good examples of practices and procedures
many of which companies increasingly regard as essential when striving to
achieve world class performance. They included:
 integrated safety, quality and environmental management systems
 multi-skilled team working with high levels of competence
 autonomous maintenance
 visible performance measurement
 embedded RCM / TPM / 5S
 routine use of 6 sigma
 sophisticated, swift line changeovers
 focussed continuous improvement
 regular and frequent team meetings
 sustained training and development for all employees
The examiner would have liked to see more evidence of financial aspects
being considered. For example, life-cycle costing is an important tool in
aiming to secure high levels of inherent reliability which is, in turn, key to
world class line efficiency. This is aimed, in part, to help judge the balance
between initial capital and ongoing revenue cost when evaluating plant
investment.
Robin Cooper
July 2010
Module 3:
Unit 9 – Process Gases for Packaging
(a) Assignment
This assignment asked the candidate to examine different means of providing
carbon dioxide of suitable quality to the brewery.
Begin by comparing offsite and onsite production methods. That is,
discuss how carbon dioxide is manufactured offsite by an industrial gas
supplier, how it can be collected and cleaned up onsite, and present some
cost estimates comparing these two methods for providing carbon
dioxide to a brewery.
The next part of the assignment is focused on gas quality. What are
potential contaminants in compressed carbon dioxide and what can be
their source? What precautions should a brewery take to safeguard
against contamination of an inert gas supply?
Include in your discussion the gas specifications for carbon dioxide at
your brewery.
Of the eight candidates submitting answers for this assignment six did well,
one did outstanding and one rather poorly.
The assignment asked candidates to explain how carbon dioxide is produced
off site by gas manufacturers. The main source is a by product of industrial
ammonia production, although it can be sourced via recovery from flue gases
 

emitted during the manufacture of iron, generation of electricity and  
other industrial process that burn carbon based fuels. It is also a by
product of carbohydrate fermentations as well as lime and sodium
phosphate manufacturing. Description of the onsite production
techniques should have included detailed explanations of collection,
scrubbing, drying, pressurizing and liquefaction. Carbon dioxide quality
(i.e. low oxygen and absence of chemical contaminants) is critical to
ensuring beer quality. Analyses should include compositional,
microbiological and sensory examination of the gas. The candidates
should have outlines methods to prevent ingress of contaminants into the
gas stream during storage as well as transport throughout the brewery.
Control of oxygen levels in the gas phase during fermentation (for
collection) should also have been discussed.
(b) Short Answer Questions
Seven candidates attempted and passed this section of the exam with an
average of 69% correct.
Candidates performed well on this part of the exam. They could
accurately define Dalton’s law, describe Henry’s law, and draw venturi
carbonators. Candidates also performed well in the area of carbon
dioxide recovery. The areas where the struggled included identifying
influences on gas super saturation, performing ideal gas law calculations,
and discussing compressed air handling and treatment.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 – Gas Calculations Using Ideal Gas Law
The headspace of a bright beer tank contains 150 hl of a mixture of
nitrogen (N2) (75%) and CO2 (25%) at 20°C (293 K). The
concentration of gases in the headspace is in equilibrium with the
beer. If the pressure is 300 kPa absolute, calculate the partial
pressure, partial volume, number of moles and mass of both gases in
the headspace. [25]
The universal gas constant, R = 8.314 kJ.kmol-1.K-1 [=] m3 kPa.kmol-
.K-1
1 against a range of fully explained relevant standards was well conceived,
Atomic weights: C = 12, N = 14, O = 16.
Explain what would happen to the carbonation level in the beer if
the tank pressure was increased by the addition of 100% nitrogen.
[10]
Three candidates chose this question and all passed, although two just
barely.
The first part asked the candidates to perform some basic calculations
involving the ideal gas law. Note that using both partial pressure and
partial volumes at the same time in the ideal gas law is incorrect. The
second part of the question tested whether candidates understood
applications of Henry’s law. Adding nitrogen to a tank headspace and
thereby increasing its pressure does not influence the partial pressure of
carbon dioxide. Thus the level of CO2 in the beer would remain constant.
Question 2 – CO2 Measurement and Adjustment
Discuss how the carbon dioxide concentration in beer is measured in
a brewery. Include in the answer the basic principles upon which
the measurement procedure is based. [20]
Discuss how the carbonation of bright beer can be adjusted upwards
and downwards to achieve a target specification. [15]
Four candidates chose this question and two passed with scores
averaging 64%.
This question asked the candidates to describe how (not where) carbon
dioxide is measured in the brewery. Specifically, the examiner was
looking for a description of the basic principles (i.e. fundamental
chemistry or physics) underlying each measurement technique. Several
different techniques rely on measuring the temperature and pressure of a
sample or gas captured from a sample to estimate CO2 content. Other
methods rely on volume expansion of captured gas or infrared
spectroscopy. The second part of the question asked candidates to
discuss ways to adjust carbon dioxide upwards (i.e. top gas pressure,
36           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
sparging tanks, inline venturi, sinters or nozzles) and downwards (i.e.
reduced top pressure and sparging with nitrogen).
Thomas Shellhammer
July 2010
Module 3:
Unit 10 – Fluid Dynamics for Packaging and Materials of
Construction
(a) Assignment
The assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the role
of materials of construction and civil finishes in the overall operational
performance of a packaging line.
For a mature packaging line operation of your choice, assess the
performance of the materials of construction against what were, or what
you believe would have been, the original criteria for selection.
Reassess the materials against current best practice criteria for selection,
draw conclusions and produce recommendations for future projects or
asset modifications / improvements.
Your considerations should not only concentrate on materials that have
performed well but, most importantly, those which have given problems.
You should include floor, wall and ceiling finishes but not building
structures unless they have impacted adversely on operational
performance.
Submissions ranged in quality from very good to poor and the marks awarded
varied accordingly. The good assignments were easy to read with well
structured plans and of appropriate word count. Descriptions of historic and
current best practice safety, hygiene, maintenance and technical requirements
provided a sound basis and the better submissions featured carefully selected
photographs to illustrate the answers. An overall approach of “auditing”
objective and led to good, specific recommendations. More comparative cost
data would have been welcomed together with further consideration of life
cycle costing.
This assignment offered the opportunity to investigate examples of best
practice and make references to them – just one candidate did this adequately.
The weak and poor submissions were generally unstructured, short and
lacking the rigour being sought. There was often a concentration on stainless
and mild steels and should have been balanced with consideration of other
materials. Floor, wall and ceiling finishes were, in several cases, ignored
completely (although asked for) while one submission only considered civil
finishes! The approach was, for many, too general and more specific
examples of material issues relating to actual items of plant and equipment
were anticipated. Too frequently there was little information about
maintenance implications, safety and hygiene. Ongoing revenue costs and life
cycle costing were not considered although clearly very important. Simplistic
and sometimes superficial recommendations were made but lacked true
objectivity (for example the use of cost versus benefit analysis).
Robin Cooper
July 2010
(b) Short Answer Questions
Seven candidates attempted this section and all did well with an average of
79% correct.
The general performance of the candidates on this part of the exam was quite
high. All could understand the implications of the continuity equation could
identify valves based on schematic diagrams and indentify the factors that
contribute to stainless steel’s corrosion resistance. The areas where the
candidates had the most difficulty was in describing shear thinning vs.
Newtonian fluids using a shear stress vs. shear strain diagram. Surprisingly,
quite a number could not accurately define gauge pressure.
 

(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 – Net Positive Suction Head Problem
Describe cavitation and discuss its effects in a piping system. [10]
Hot caustic at 80ºC is pumped via a centrifugal pump situated 3 m
below the level of caustic in the feed tank. The pump has a required
net positive suction head (NPSH) of 6 m. If the tank is at
atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) and the hot caustic has a vapour
pressure of 80 kPa determine if the pump will cavitate when
emptying the tank. [15]
The pressure drop through the pipes and fittings between the tank
and the pump is equivalent to a head loss of 0.25 m and the density
of caustic solution at 80ºC is 1004 kg/m3. Acceleration due to
gravity is 9.81 m/s2.
Describe the difficulties of pumping the hot caustic from the tank.
Discuss possible solutions with reference to the practicalities of
implementing them. [10]
Two candidates chose this question and both scored 60-65% of the total
marks.
The first part asked the candidates to describe cavitation which is the
sudden formation of bubbles and then their rapid collapse. It is the gas
bubble collapse (not the gas break out) that can be so damaging to
pumps. The second part was a straightforward NPSH calculation with a
result of 4.78 m. The last part asked candidates to offer solutions to
pumping hot fluids. The problem here is dealing with a fluid that has it
vapour pressure close to the system pressure. Using the equation for
calculating NPSH as a guide, the candidates could walk through various
measures for increasing the suction side available head.
Question 2 – Stress Corrosion Cracking
Describe stress corrosion cracking in stainless steel and the factors
that contribute to it. [15]
Where can it be found in a packaging facility? [10]
How can the stress corrosion cracking be controlled? [10]
Six candidates chose this question, all passed with scores averaging 70%.
One candidate performed very well scoring over 90%.
Stress corrosion cracking is localized corrosion that creates a very brittle
structure and the propagation of fine cracks. It is caused by combined
tensile stress, high temperatures (>60C), and a corrosive environment
(chlorine – solutions or from chlorine containing insulation). It is found
in high temperature applications where there may be tensile stress – hot
liquid pipes near welds, improper connections to pumps that are under
tensile stress, hot liquid tanks that are improperly insulated. The risk of
SCC can be reduced by ensuring insulation is chlorine-free, using
materials that are resistant to SCC in certain applications such as duplex
stainless steel or mild steel for external heat transfer media.
Thomas Shellhammer
July 2010
Module 3:
Unit 11 – Thermal Energy Transfer For Packaging
(a) Assignment
This assignment was designed to show that the candidate understood the
role of insulation.
For a packaging facility of your choice, from beer storage to
warehouse, describe the uses of insulation to reduce heat transfer.
Use your answer to explain the basis of selection (technical,
commercial and other) of insulation materials for differing
applications.
For an insulated steam pipe in your chosen packaging facility,
calculate:
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               37
a) the heat loss to the surrounding air per metre run
b) the heat loss to the surrounding air per metre run if the pipe was not
insulated
c) the percentage reduction in heat loss achieved by insulating the pipe.
(Show your calculations in detail explaining the basis for the calculations
and any assumptions you make).
Comment on the results and from these and your earlier investigatory
work on insulation selection, draw conclusions and make
recommendations for future insulation strategy.
Submissions ranged in quality from very good to weak. The better answers
were well planned, structured, of appropriate length and with strong
conclusions and recommendations. The purposes and qualities of insulation
were generally well described with examples of above and below ambient
applications. The best descriptions skilfully used photographs for illustrative
purposes – e.g. missing and damaged lagging, flange and valve boxes etc.
Weaker answers gave insufficient examples of the uses of insulation and
lacked technical detail. Several answers made no mention of civil
applications of insulation – the word “warehouse” in the task description
might have served as a clue!
A number of candidates handled the calculations with great ease – two in
particular providing near model answers! All the candidates correctly
employed Fourier’s equation as the basis for the calculations. However, many
made simple mistakes including converting mm to m! Log mean diameter
should have been used for the insulation and for the uninsulated pipe
calculation an external film (surface) heat transfer coefficient was needed for
a key additional and most influential term of thermal resistance (with a
temperature differential between the pipe and ambient). Reductions in heat
loss in excess of 99% (one was 99.95%!) were clearly unrealistic and should
have sounded an alarm bell – around 94% would be more normal. There are
proprietary tables showing comparisons for insulated and uninsulated pipes
and a simple check would have allowed a rethink perhaps or prompted the
candidate to seek help.
The conclusions based on the calculation were generally reasonable but often
lacked objectivity. In this field a cost versus benefit analysis is a vital tool.
The assessor would have liked to see more candidates include a replacement
policy for damaged or missing insulation which is extremely important in
preserving thermal efficiency.
Robin Cooper
July 2010
(b) Short Answer Questions
Seven candidates attempted this section and all but one passed. The average
passing score was 79% correct.
The candidates performed well, in general, with the fundamental concepts of
heat transfer. They could identify basic phenomena associated with both
controlling the rate of heat transfer in forced and natural convection as well
as simple conduction. Half of the candidates could not describe how to
estimate average heat transfer areas in pipes and most could not perform
basic heat flux calculations associated with wort boiling. With regard to
natural convection, quite a few candidates could not correctly describe how
temperature affects beer density within 10C of its freezing point.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 – Heat Exchanger Problem
Describe using diagrams the principle of operation of a plate heat
exchanger in both co-current and counter-current flow, showing the
temperature profiles and, separately, the temperature difference along
the length of the heat exchanger for each flow type. [15]
A plate heat exchanger is used to heat water flowing at 100 hl·h-1 from
10°C to 80°C. The heating medium, which is hot, waste condensate at
95°C, flows counter-current through the heat exchanger at a flow rate of
200 hl·h-1. Calculate the number of plates required if each plate has an
area of 0.6m2. State any assumptions. [20]
Average density of hot water and condensate = 980 kg·m-3
Specific heat of water = 4.2 kJ·kg-1·K-1
Overall heat transfer coefficient = 2000 W·m-2·K-1
 

All seven candidates chose this question and all but one passed. The
average passing score was 65% of the total marks.
The first part asked the candidates to draw the temperature profile along
the length of a heat exchanger and not how fluid travels through the
various plates of this device. The key here was to prepare two separate
graphs of the fluid temperature within the heat exchanger, one for co-
current and another for counter-current flow. The next set of figures
should have indicated a temperature difference between the two streams
that changed significantly along the length of the heat exchanger for co-
current flow while the temperature difference should have changed only
minimally for the counter-current flow regime. The second part of the
problem was a classic heat exchange area calculation. The candidate
needed to identify the missing outlet temperature (60ºC) before
proceeding with determining the inlet and outlet temperature differences
and then the log mean average temperature difference (29ºC). The total
heat transfer area was approximately 14 m2, which is roughly 23 plates,
or 24 plates if one assumes 96% efficiency.
Question 2 – Combined Heat Loss And Steam Quality Problem
What is wet steam, how is it formed and why is dry, saturated steam
preferable for heating applications? [10]
If dry, saturated steam at 150C flows at 0.1 kg/s down a pipeline
with 120 mm OD and 100 m in length, estimate the dryness fraction
(percent dry steam) of the steam leaving the pipe when the pipe is
insulated with glass wool to a thickness of 30 mm. [25]
For your calculation you may assume there is negligible resistance to
convective heat transfer inside a steam pipe and negligible
temperature drop across the pipe wall. The heat loss per unit length
of pipe covered with insulation can be calculated as:
q 2ho ro k ins
 T
L   ro  
 kins  ho ro ln  
  r 
  i 
where:
q/L = heat loss per length of pipe (W·m-1)
ho = external surface heat transfer coefficient (W·m-2·K-1)
ro = outside radius of the insulation (m)
ri = outside radius of pipe and inside radius of insulation (m)
kins = thermal conductivity of the insulation material (W·m-1·K-1)
ΔT = temperature difference between the interior of the pipe and the
surrounding air (C)
The thermal conductivity of the glass wool is 0.04 W·m-1·K-1. The
outside air temperature is 25C, and the convective heat transfer
coefficient on the exterior of the insulated pipe is 10 W·m-2·K-1.
Saturated steam properties at 150C, 476 kPa:
Specific enthalpy of vapour = 2746 kJ·kg-1.
Specific enthalpy of condensate = 632 kJ·kg-1.
No candidates attempted this problem.
Thomas Shellhammer
July 2010
Module 3:
Unit 12 – Process/ Line Control and Instrumentation
(a) Assignment
This assignment asked the candidate to demonstrate their knowledge of
different types of control loops/systems within their department.
Within your packaging hall, or accompanying cellar, find two
examples each of feed forward and feedback control loops. For each
of these,
 describe the system being controlled,
 explain the principle(s) and mechanism(s) upon which the
sensing element works,
 discuss in detail how the information is passed throughout
the control loop,
38           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010 
 explain what controlling algorithm is being used,
 discuss how this control loop information is used, acted upon,
or stored,
 justify a conclusion about the appropriateness of the selected
controller or make a recommendation for an improved or
more appropriate controller.
Use photographs and/or diagrams if it will aid in your discussion.
Six of the eight candidates demonstrated a very good performance on this
assignment. One prepared a model answer scoring near perfect marks. Two
weak performances wasted effort answering questions that were not asked by
the assignment and failing to tailor their answers to what was being asked.
This is a relatively common error by candidates and it should not be
committed in an assignment. The element of time pressure is removed in this
case. It is surprising to read submissions that do not stick to the assignment
questions. Candidates are urged to read the assignment question carefully
and then go about answering which is being asked.
The examiner wished to see a thorough description of both a system being
controlled, the equipment used to sense and control the system, and to
describe how the information flows in the system. While the examiner
wished to see the controlling algorithm for each particular case, the
assignment was not about control theory. A simple description of the nature
and (possibly the difficulties) of feed-forward and feed-back control was
sufficient. Some examples that candidates used for their assignment included
filler bowl pressure control, wrap around packer speed, steam boiler control,
temperature control in a pasteurizer, IBT to filler control, beer dilution,
conveyor speed control.
(b) Short Answer Questions
Eight candidates attempted this section and all passed. The average passing
score was 74% correct.
All candidates were able to identify measured variables, controlled variables,
and manipulated variables in example control systems. All were able to
correctly articulate disadvantages to feed-forward and feed-back control
systems. In general, questions about control theory and basic components
were correctly answered. Answers to questions about the principle of
operation for different flow meters, proximity switch, and strain gauges
displayed variable results. Nearly all candidates could not accurately draw a
diagram of an in-line turbidity sensing device.
(c) Long Answer Questions
Question 1 – Sensors
Describe the principle of operation for the following sensors. Include in
your answers diagrams which identify the important components.
Thermocouple [6]
Platinum Resistance Temperature Detector [6]
Turbine flow meter [6]
Electromagnetic flow meter [6]
Draw comparisons within each group (temperature and flow) by listing
their advantages and disadvantages. [11]
Only two of the eight candidates chose to answer this question, and their
performance was fair, scoring 50 – 60% of the total marks.
This question was not seeking tremendous depth, rather it required the
candidates to demonstrate a breadth of knowledge of different sensors. For
the first part of this question, the examiner wanted to see simple diagrams of
each of the four sensors with the key components identified. Some of the
answers include correct diagrams for sensors not asked in the question. This
was simply confusion between, for example, a bimetallic thermometer and a
thermocouple. The candidates are urged to practice drawing sensors (and
valves, pumps, heat exchangers, for that matter) prior to sitting the exam. The
comparison part could be answered with a table or list of advantages and
disadvantages. It did not require long explanations.
Question 2 – Control Theory
What is the objective of using a PID controller? [5]
Explain PID control for a proportional controller by: [10]
 

(1) presenting an equation describing the controller action
(2) drawing a graph of response versus time
(3) describing in conceptual terms the principle upon which the
controlling action works
(4) offering an example of where you would see a particular
component
Repeat the above explanation for both an Integral control and a
Derivative control. [10 + 10]
Eight candidates answered this question and the performance ranged
from very good to several who just barely passed.
Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               39
This long answer question was somewhat a compliment to the assignment
asked earlier in the year in that this question focused on control theory. The
examiner tried to lead the candidates through a step-by-step process of
analyzing a PID control response for proportional, integral and derivative
control, which some, but not all, candidates chose to follow. In questions
such as this where the candidate is asked to answer a variety of key features
in a repetitive fashion, brevity (but completeness) in the answer is critical. As
with the first question, the candidates are urged to practice making drawings,
in this instance of control responses for the different types of P, I and D
control systems.
Thomas Shellhammer
July 2010
 
 

GENERAL CERTIFICATE IN BREWING AND   May 2010 Report

PACKAGING EXAMINATIONS
  The Spring examinations for the General Certificates in Brewing and Packaging
(GCB, GCP) were held on 10 May 2010 at 46 centres in 24 countries.
November 2009 Report
This was the 10th of the new multiple-choice examinations with specialist options
The Autumn examinations for the General Certificates in Brewing and for brewing and packaging variations, i.e. C&F, Cask, Keg, RB (Returnable
Packaging (GCB, GCP) were held on 13th November 2009 at 50 centres Bottles), NRB (Non Returnable Bottles) and Can.
in 21 countries.
The examination was taken ‘on-line’ at 12 centres across the world, 6 of them
This was the 9th of the new multiple-choice examinations with specialist being outside the UK and Ireland.
options for brewing and packaging variations, i.e. C&F, Cask, Keg, RB
(Returnable Bottles), NRB (Non Returnable Bottles) and Can. There were 223 entries, with an overall pass rate of 64%, which compares with a
figure of 48% for the corresponding examination in May 2009.
The examination was taken ‘on-line’ at 17 centres across the world, 8 of
them being outside the UK and Ireland. The pass rate achieved by candidates sitting the examination ‘on line’ was 53%.
On paper the pass rate was 66%
There were 282 entries, with an overall pass rate of 67%, compared with
the pass rate of 57% achieved at the corresponding November 2008 The break-down between GCB and GCP results is shown below in table 1
examination.
Table 1 May 2010
The pass rate achieved by candidates sitting the examination ‘on line’
was 61%, while on paper the pass rate was 69%. Exam Option Distinction Credit Pass Fail Total

The break-down between GCB and GCP results is shown in table 1 GCP
Can
Table 1 Nov 2009 (Packaging) 0 0 3 5 8
Keg
Exam Option Distinction Credit Pass Fail Total (Packaging) 0 0 3 0 3
NRB
GCP
(Packaging) 0 1 7 5 13
Can
RB
(Packaging) 0 1 7 4 12 (Packaging) 0 1 10 21 32
Keg
(Packaging) 0 1 1 2 4
NRB GCB
(Packaging) 0 4 20 11 35 Cask
RB (Brewing) 1 3 7 2 13
(Packaging) 0 1 15 13 29 C&F
(Brewing) 2 19 85 48 154

GCB
Diagram 1 below is a graphical distribution of pass grade by option
Cask
(Brewing) 0 0 6 9 15
C&F 180
(Brewing) 1 13 118 55 187 160
Number of Candidates

140
Diagram 1 below is a graphical distribution of pass grade by option. Distinction
120
Credit
100
Pass
140 80
Fail
60
Number of Candidates

120 Total
Distinction 40
100
Credit 20
80 Pass 0
(Packaging)

(Packaging)

(Packaging)

(Packaging)

(Brewing)

(Brewing)

60 Fail
Cask

C&F
NRB
Can

Keg

RB

40
20
GCP GCB
0
(Brewing)

(Brewing)
(Packaging)

(Packaging)

(Packaging)

(Packaging)

Cask

C&F
NRB
Can

COMMENTS
Keg

RB

GCB
GCP GCB
Overall the pass rate for GCB was 70% with 3 distinctions (90%) and 22 credits
(80%).
COMMENTS
The pass rate for the ‘C&F’ paper was 69% with 2 distinctions and 19 credits.
Overall the pass rate for GCB was 68%, with 1 distinction (90%) and 13
credits (80%).
The following questions were generally answered poorly.
a) malt milling and dust extraction
The pass rate for GCP was 62.5%, with no distinctions and 7 credits
b) wort oxygenation
being awarded. 
c) compressed gases used for pneumatic cylinder operations
d) achievable water usage ratios

40           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 
  

GCP
G   g) quality sy
ystem
h) sterilantss
The
T GCP pass ratte was 45%, witth no distinctionss and 2 credits bbeing i) water andd effluent
aw
warded.
Canndidates for the ‘n
non-returnable boottle’ option also
o tended to be weak
w on
The
T following queestions were answ
wered poorly ‘flav
vour terms’.

a) differennces between ale and lager duee to different maalting Howwever, it is gratiffying to note that
at questions invollving ‘calculationns’ and
processses on ‘packaging
‘ lossess’, previously trooublesome sectio
ons to many canddidates,
b) sensitivvity of various orrganisms to pasteu
urization were well-answered.
c) can seaam dimensions
d) the neeed to record any innspection checks
e) effect oof DO2 on finisheed beer Coliin McCrorie
f) differennces between lacttic acid and acetic acid bacteria Septtember 2010
 
 
 
GENERAL
G CERTIFICATE IN
N DISTILLING
G   Thee continued succcess of candidatates suggests thaat the new form mat of
EXAMINATION
E N exammination as multiple choice questtions is becoming
g better understood and
morre established.

In
n November 20009, 40 candidates sat the GCD ex xamination; 27 paassed Howwever, it is imperrative that candiddates read each question
q very carrefully,
(6
68%) with one D Distinction and 5 Credits. This pass
p rate is simillar to pluss any associated graph, sketch orr table, to understand precisely what
w is
November
N 2008, bbut with four timees as many candid
dates. requ
uired.

n May 2010, 123 candidates sat thhe GCD, with 6 fo

In ollowing the Mollasses MCCQ papers are designed to examinne the full bread dth of the syllabuus, but
op
ption for the firrst time. The passs rate was 70%
%, with 86 candiidates quesstions are design
ned to give a ranange of degree of o difficulty and this is
passing, includingg 2 with Distincction (one Cereaal candidate andd one achiieved by altering
g the level of plaausibility of the “distracters” withhin the
Molasses
M candidatte), plus 13 Crediits. quesstions.

This
T number of caandidates is closee to the record nuumber of entrantss who Of course
c there has never been any intention to misllead candidates, but b for
saat the GCD lastt May, and together with the high number sittinng in som
me questions the degree
d of difficullty will test the depth
d of the canddidates’
November
N 2009 m
means the total nuumber of entrantss is steadily increaasing knowledge, which may
m expose the levvel of candidates’ preparation.
year on year.
Finaally, the examinerrs are optimistic tthat the “Molassees” and “Grape” options
o
n addition, it is pparticularly pleasiing that candidatees are now electinng to
In for this
t qualification will continue to bbe supported and d become more poopular.
fo
ollow the optionss other than Cereaal.

  Dr David
D G. Taylor
September 2010
 
 
 
 
 
Succ
cessful Can
ndidates

The succe
essful candida
ates from the 2
2010 Diploma and Master Brewer B Examinnations,
who met
m all the IBD D criteria, are listed as follow
ws:

MASTER
M BREWER EXAMIN
NATIONS
OLD
O SYLLABU
US Parsons,
P Patrick Roy nternational
In
Sneddon,
S Ewan Grreat Northern
Module 1 passses
Coulson, Adam Nathaniel
N ++ Asia Pacificc
Module
M 3 passes
Kapoko Tagnee, Innocentt Africa
Chan,
C Ching Fook Asia Pacific
Kirkton, William James Midland
Dickinson,
D Rebecca Jeaan In
nternational
Mahesh, Rajamannickam Asia Pacificc
Hammond,
H Peter Clark +++ So
outhern
Stewart, Neil Seddaka Internationaal
Harrington,
H Criona Threease ++ Iriish
Walton, Emma Louise
L Great Northhern
Kenmogne,
K Maurice ++ Africa
Module 2 passses Yeoh,
Y Bun-Hooi ++ Asia Pacific
Donehower, Weston John
J Internationaal
Gilleland, Emma-Jaane ++ Midland Module
M 4 passes
Harrington, Criona Threase
T ++ Irish Broadbent,
B Jonathan Pau
aul ++ Midland
M
Ogunsola, Olusoji Oladapo
O Africa Chan,
C Ching Fook Asia Pacific

Instiitute of Brew
wing and Disstilling Exam iners Reportt 2010               41 
 
 

Hammond, Peter Clark ++ Southern Module 3 passes

Kiyingi, Stephen Africa
Onuoha, Benneth Chibueze Africa Module 4 passes
Parkinson, Philip James ++ Midland Hacker, Marco Midland
Pitso, Gabriel Africa O'Connor, Fearghal Patrick Irish
Saha, Surajit Asia Pacific Radegonde, Andrea Africa
Walton, Emma Louise Great Northern Tomblin, Steven Andrew Southern
Yeoh Bun-Hooi ++ Asia Pacific
Module 5 passes
Module 5 passes Coulson, Adam Nathaniel ++ Asia Pacific
Broadbent, Jonathan Paul ++ Midland Kay, Nicola Jane Southern
Hammond, Peter Clark ++ Southern Siaw, Yon Miaw ++ Asia Pacific
Kwarciak, Dominika Great Northern ++ has passed all modules of the Master Brewer by accumulation

McLean, Kevin Ian Maurice ++ International

Morley, Shane Kelvin ++ Asia Pacific DIPLOMA IN BREWING

Parkinson, Philip James ++ Midland

Module 1 passes
Yeoh, Bun-Hooi ++ Asia Pacific
Adesina, Adewole Africa
++ has passed all modules of the Master Brewer by accumulation
Agarawal, Susheel Kumar Asia Pacific
Aguiar, Laura ++ International
MASTER BREWER EXAMINATIONS
NEW SYLLABUS Agyingi, Samson Enyiawah Africa
Allen, Aaron ++ International
Module 1 passes Anderson, David ++ International
Bekker, Annette Africa Atabhujie, Ekpen Bright Africa

Bhardwaj, Sharad Asia Pacific Bajwa, Hardeep Asia Pacific

Calman, Nathan Garth Asia Pacific Bandaranayake, Sampath Chaminda International

Elks, Jonathan William Midland Barbieri, Regis De Santis ++ International

Barek, Thomas ++ International
Gupta, Vishnu Asia Pacific
Basu, Lasat Asia Pacific
Hacker, Marco Midland
Bedford, Daniel International
Hopper, David Great Northern
Binh, Trinh Thi Thanh
Muiruri, Michael Mwaura Africa
Bormans, Michel Marcel Lucien Maria International
Musonda, Wellington Africa
Bossu, Stephen ++ International
Ndungu, Naftaly Theuri Africa
Botha, Samantha Sian ++ Africa
Nyaki, Julius Stephen Africa
Boyagoda, Nilan Bandaranayake International
Owiny, Oduor Peter Africa
Brodie, Craig Asia Pacific
Rogers, David Asia Pacific
Budigila, Benjamin Kassim Africa
Scade, Andrew John Asia Pacific
Buganga, Safari Daud Africa
Sharma , Raj Kumar Asia Pacific
Burnsed, Justin International
Sidubi, Fezile Africa
Carrera La Torre, Elard ++ International
Thandel, Manoj Parameshwara Asia Pacific
Caveney, Michael ++ International
Van Schalkwyk, Marna Africa
Christophersen, Melinda Jane Asia Pacific
Cross, Jonathan ++ International
Module 2 passes DeAngelo, Joseph ++ International
Deuhs, Gregory S International Della Vedova, Tomaso Irish
Elks, Jonathan William Midland Deo, Sudha Asia Pacific
Ezeani, Chika John Africa Derksen, Thijs ++ International
Hacker, Marco Midland Dlamini, Mbuso Bongani ++ Africa
Kabila, John Ilunga Africa Draney, Ryan International
Kay, Nicola Jane Southern Draper, Bruce Steven Asia Pacific
Oghonim, Onyelelue Everest Africa Eisele, Phillip Ryan International
Sidubi, Fezile Africa Feist Daniel Asia Pacific
Fink Ronald International

42           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 
  

Gano, Darrin William International Ngala, Lateh Genesis Africa

Gaugler, John ++ International Ngubane, Sindisiwe Precious ++ Africa
Gichovi, Wilfred Kariuk Africa Nikam, Vinod Asia Pacific
Groah, Mary International Nisworo, Adrian Pramudyo Asia Pacific
Hampshire, Christopher Thomas Great Northern Nyada Nyada, Rogatien Africa
Hamza, Shamim T Asia Pacific Nyirenda, Julius Africa
Harkhu, Niven ++ Africa Nzana, Viena Butshilani ++ Africa
Hill, David Midland Obietoh, Cynthia Chineye
Hofmann, Matthew ++ International O'Donovan, Tim Irish
Howgate, Matthew Great Northern Ogesi, Sylvester Otiende Africa
Jargalsaikhan, Enkhgerel Asia Pacific Ogieva, Godfrey Osayande Africa
Kapambwe, Tendai Africa O'Halloran, Catherine Louise ++ Great Northern
Kawasaki, Makoto ++ International Okol, Gerald Africa
Keane, Sean International Okpara, Sylva Okechukwu Africa
Kehs, Benjamin F ++ International O'Neill, Patrick Irish
Kemble, Tayna Anika Michelle International O'Riordain, Colman ++ Irish
Khumalo, Jerome Siphiwe ++ Africa Ortega, Luis International
Kielly, Neil International Oviawe, Osasu Ohilebo ++ Africa
Kihanya, Eliazah Africa Owhoruviowho, Kome Doris
Kirby, Aeveen Irish Parrish, William James International
Kiss von Soly, Brian International Perry, Nicholas ++ International
Koenigs, Ross ++ International Peter, Sandiso ++ Africa
Kuilboer, Joannes Theodorus ++ International Peyton, Sean Irish
Kuok, Peter Han Tung Asia Pacific Pittman, Stephen ++ International
Lancaster, James Andrew Asia Pacific Poorun, Varsha ++ Africa
Lenske, David Asia Pacific Price, Iain William Irish
Lim, Paul Kok Tiong Asia Pacific Read, Tyson ++ International
Long, Robert ++ International Richter, Anneke International
Luke , Stephen ++ International Riner, Urs ++ International
Lukraj, Kareishma ++ Africa Robinson, Todd ++ International
Mace, Thomas Karl International Robles, Dana ++ International
Macky, Scott ++ International Rock, Todd ++ International
Madziwa, Leighton Callistus Africa Rodenrijs, Pieter Willem Africa
Makara, Relebohile Violet ++ Africa Rollings, Kate Dollman Asia Pacific
Makoni, Cherubim Africa Rusinas, Andrew International
Makori, Alligator Eric Africa Samson, R. Craig International
Makunzva, Blessing Africa Savla, Sushil Asia Pacific
Marshall, Lee Paul Great Northern Sclafani, Bernabe ++ International
Martin, Peter International Sheen, Kerryn Louise ++ Asia Pacific
Mburu, Esther Wambui ++ Africa Small, Karli Asia Pacific
McCann, Wade Paul ++ Africa Smith, William Frederick International
McKeown, Edel Therese Irish Spitere, Mike Irish
McVeigh, Feargul Irish Struck, Alan ++ International
Mercer, Catherine ++ Great Northern Sudhakaran, Harikrishna Africa
Merrick, Jennifer Lynn Great Northern Sukram, Payal ++ Africa
Metha, Elisonguo Africa Tchatchoua, Nicolas Africa
Milly, Paul Jesse International Tefo, Sefothane Africa
Moodley, Hanika ++ Africa Teyim, Jude Africa
Mugomba, Takura M Africa Tiong, Pooi Mun Asia Pacific
Mullins, Gail Irish Tjivikua, Phortune Africa
Murphy, Rachel Asia Pacific Toolsi, Shailen ++ Africa
Nair, Anil Asia Pacific Tran, Viet Hung Asia Pacific
Netia, Roselyn Musungu Africa Turgman, Anthony International
Ng, Wenyin Asia Pacific

Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               43 
 
 

Ugwu, Emmanuel C ++ Africa Hofmann, Matthew ++ International

Van Adrichem, Quinton International Hudson, Tamara International
Vann, Paula + International Jayawickrama, Janaka ++ International
Vega, Veronica International Jones, Andrew Edward Asia Pacific
Vietz, Jerry International Kawasaki, Makoto ++ International
Visser, Erick Gustaaf ++ Africa Kelly, Rachel Asia Pacific
Vlahovich, Katrina International Kerr, Jenny International
Vogt, Richard International Khumalo, Jerome Siphiwe ++ Africa
Ward, Christopher John Asia Pacific Kidd, Ross Irish
Watcham, Brendan Africa Kihanya, Eliazah Africa
Wemmenhove, Arno ++ International Kiss von Soly, Brian International
Wibawa, Komang Satria Asia Pacific Koenigs, Ross ++ International
Wixted, John Southern Kraglund, Hans-ole Rovsing International
Wong, Tuck Loong Asia Pacific Kuilboer, Joannes Theodorus ++ International
Yossa, Maurice Africa Kumar, Arvind Asia Pacific
++ has passed all modules of the Diploma in Brewing by accumulation Leather, Paola Southern
Loan, Tran Thi Ngoc Asia Pacific
Module 2 passes Long, Robert ++ International
Aguiar, Laura ++ International Luke , Stephen ++ International
Aistrope, Melissa Anne Asia Pacific Lukraj, Kareishma ++ Africa
Allen, Aaron ++ International Mace, Thomas Karl International
Anderson, David ++ International Macky, Scott ++ International
Bandaranayake, Sampath Chaminda International Madziwa, Leighton Callistus Africa
Barbieri, Regis De Santis ++ International Makara, Relebohile Violet ++ Africa
Barek, Thomas ++ International Makoni, Cherubim Africa
Beckwith, James International Martin, Remy ++ International
Bedford, Daniel International Mburu, Esther Wambui ++ Africa
Berner, Jacobus Africa McCann, Wade Paul ++ Africa
Bossu, Stephen ++ International Mcginty, Patrick Joseph ++ Midland
Botha, Samantha Sian ++ Africa Mcleod, Gayann Camille Mcknight International
Brandon-Davies, Alex Great Northern Middleton, Anna Violet Irish
Brestovansky, Jan Irish Milly, Paul Jesse International
Burnsed, Justin International Mogorosi, Mildred ++ Africa
Bwengye, Moses Bagumira Africa Molokwu, Jude Ikechukwu Africa
Carrera La Torre, Elard ++ International Moodley, Hanika ++ Africa
Caveney, Michael ++ International Moonsamy, Sathievelli Africa
Clarijs, Paul International Mudoh, Mbachan Richard Africa
Clarke, Matthew Great Northern Mugomba, Takura M Africa
Cross, Jonathan ++ International Mullins, Gail Irish
Dale, James Andrew Asia Pacific Mwigune, Ahazi Seif Africa
DeAngelo, Joseph ++ International Ndifon, Leo Tabe Africa
Delaney, Deirdre Irish Ngoile, Eric Wilhelm International
Derksen, Thijs ++ International Ngubane, Sindisiwe Precious ++ Africa
Dlamini, Mbuso Bongani ++ Africa Nzana, Viena Butshilani ++ Africa
Eisele, Phillip Ryan International Ogunwale, Gbenga Adeniyi Africa
Emor, Stephen ++ Africa Oviawe, Osasu Ohilebo ++ Africa
Gadsen, John ++ International Parker, Robert James International
Gano, Darrin William International Parrish, William James International
Gaugler, John ++ International Pedder, James ++ Southern
Govender, Previn Nadason ++ Africa Perry, Nicholas ++ International
Harkhu, Niven ++ Africa Peter, Sandisto ++ Africa
Harvey, Vayden International Pittman, Stephen ++ International
Hazell, Ashley Graham Asia Pacific Poorun, Varsha ++ Africa
Henney, Mathew ++ Southern Price Iain William Irish

44           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 
  

Quinn Kevin Scottish Billig Marcus Charles ++ Midland

Read Tyson ++ International Bossu Stephen ++ International
Richard Jason International Botha Samantha Sian ++ Africa
Riner Urs ++ International Carrera La Torre Elard ++ International
Robinson Todd ++ International Caveney Michael ++ International
Robles Dana ++ International Chamberlin Richard Andrew ++ Midland
Rock Todd ++ International Chan Mei Sim Gisselle ++ Asia Pacific
Rotherham Andrew Great Northern Cherukut Alfred Stefan ++ Africa
Rutland Luke Asia Pacific Chiplunkar Ritesh Ramakant Asia Pacific
Ryan Martin Irish Coffey Dayton Joseph ++ Asia Pacific
Salter Genevieve Corinne Midland Cook Jamie Harold Great Northern
Savla Sushil Asia Pacific Crawford Lindsay Matthew ++ Asia Pacific
Schuurman Harry Dirk ++ Africa Cross Jonathan ++ International
Sclafani Bernabe ++ International Daniels David Paul Africa
Scott Paul Daniel Great Northern DeAngelo Joseph ++ International
Sheen Kerryn Louise ++ Asia Pacific Delaney Stephen Irish
Simpson Peter ++ Irish Derksen Thijs ++ International
Smith Marc Great Northern Dirks Rebecca ++ Africa
Spencer Paul Great Northern Dlamini Mbuso Bongani ++ Africa
Struck Alan ++ International Egan Lawrence ++ Irish
Sukram Payal ++ Africa Elias Nsamba Africa
Tefo Sefothan Africa Emor Stephen ++ Africa
Tingay Jennifer Alison ++ Southern Gaugler John ++ International
Toolsi Shailen ++ Africa Govender Previn Nadason ++ Africa
Tummers Rob Mathieu Johan International Grant Tameika Rachelle International
Turgman Anthony International Harkhu Niven ++ Africa
Ugwu Emmanuel C ++ Africa Henney Mathew ++ Southern
Uwajeh Chinedu Francis ++ Africa Hioe Margaretta ++ Asia Pacific
Van der Werf Hilbert ++ International Hodgkins Rupert Howard ++ Southern
Vann Paula ++ International Hofmann Matthew ++ International
Vespa Geremi ++ International Howley Joann ++ Irish
Visser Erick Gustaaf ++ Africa Hunter Andrew Wallace Great Northern
Walker Daniel Christopher Asia Pacific Hutchinson Kirk-Dale Hugh International
Ward Christopher John Asia Pacific Janse van Rensburg Albertus Adriaan Africa
Ward Jonathan Christopher Midland Kapambwe Tendai Africa
Wemmenhove Arno ++ International Kawasaki Makoto ++ International
Williamson Samuel George Asia Pacific Keane Sean International
Wills Alyson Doreen International Kehs Benjamin F ++ International
Wiseman Geoffrey International Khumalo Jerome Siphiwe ++ Africa
++ has passed all modules of the Diploma in Brewing by accumulation Kilasi Oscar W ++ Africa
Koay Beng Guat ++ Asia Pacific
Module 3 passes Koenigs Ross ++ International
Aguiar Laura ++ International Kuilboer Joannes Theodorus ++ International
Allen Aaron ++ International Lanthois Ben Kevin ++ Asia Pacific
Anderson David ++ International Legnard John International
Atabhujie Ekpen Bright Africa Lim Chui Wan Asia Pacific
Badura Michael ++ Irish Long Robert International
Bailey Ed Phillip Oreal International Luke Stephen International
Baldry Dawn Marie ++ Southern Lukraj Kareishma Africa
Barbieri Regis De Santis ++ International Macky Scott International
Barek Thomas ++ International Makara Relebohile Violet Africa
Beckwith James International Martin Carmen Estelle Africa
Benson Michael Andrew ++ Great Northern
Bharne Pankaj ++ Asia Pacific

Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010               45 
 
 

May, Chloe Southern Toolsi, Shailen ++ Africa

Mburu, Esther Wambui ++ Africa Tripathi, Arijit ++ Asia Pacific
McCann, Wade Paul ++ Africa Ugwu, Emmanuel C ++ Africa
Mcginty, Patrick Joseph ++ Midland Uherova, Alexandra ++ Irish
McKeown, Edel Therese Irish Ursu, Anatolie ++ International
Merchant, Anna Victoria ++ Great Northern Van Adrichem, Quinton International
Merida, Ivan Stewart International Van den Berg, Thomas Hendrik International
Merrington, Peter Anthony ++ Asia Pacific Vandergoot, Mark Raymond International
Mishra, Suresh Chandra ++ Asia Pacific Vann, Paula ++ International
Mitchell, Imran O International Visser, Erick Gustaaf ++ Africa
Moodley, Hanika ++ Africa Ward, Christopher John ++ Asia Pacific
Morgan-Jones, Andrew ++ Asia Pacific Watkiss, Ben Asia Pacific
Mubiru, James Kasozi Africa Wemmenhove, Arno ++ International
Ndedi Ebelle, Angeline Larissa Africa Willcock, Chris Joel ++ Asia Pacific
Ngubane, Sindisiwe Precious ++ Africa Witty, Rachel Margaret Great Northern
Nine Rey, Maria Victoria ++ Great Northern Zeller, Shay Irish
Nkya, Cavin Naiman ++ Africa Ziefflie, Brad ++ International
Nwachukwu, Evelyn Udochukwu ++ Africa ++ has passed all modules of the Diploma in Brewing by accumulation
Nyirenda, Julius Africa
Nzana, Viena Butshilani ++ Africa DIPLOMA IN DISTILLING
Nzowa, Herman Mathias ++ Africa
Ogesi, Sylvester Otiende Africa Module 1 passes
O'Riordain, Colman ++ Irish Bell, Karen Scottish
Oshiegbu, Dolapo Africa Campbell, Elaine Scottish
Oviawe, Osasu Ohilebo ++ Africa Christine, Stewart Royston Scottish
Owuor, Peter Africa Douglas, Kenneth James Scottish
Parker, Drew Michael ++ Asia Pacific Dunbar, Craig Mckenzie Scottish
Penny, Dirk Asia Pacific Fleming, Gavin Rhodes Scottish
Perry, Nicholas ++ International Fordham, Nikolas Stephen Lawrence Southern
Peter, Sandiso ++ Africa Fraser, Shane Scottish
Pittman, Stephen ++ International Glancy, Shona Scottish
Poorun, Varsha ++ Africa Innes, Guy Scottish
Read, Tyson ++ International Jordan, Jaime Irish
Riner, Urs ++ International Kinnear, Lesley Scottish
Robinson, Todd ++ International Lancaster, Mark Scottish
Robles, Dana ++ International Loveland, Jane Scottish
Rock, Todd ++ International O'Meara, John Brian Irish
Rusinas, Andrew International Pienaar, Schalk Willem ++ Africa
Sakthivel, Muthumalaichamy International Poppy, Colin Michael Scottish
Samson, R. Craig International Rettie, Alan Scottish
Schuurman, Harry Dirk ++ Africa Schroeder, Shona Asia Pacific
Sclafani, Bernabe ++ International Stephens, Jeremy Matthew Scottish
Searle, Bradley David Asia Pacific Thorn, Ian John Southern
Sheehan, Christopher Alan John ++ Asia Pacific Wiseman, Murray Orr Scottish
Sivakumar, Naveen T. International
Sonar, Sanjay Chintaman ++ Asia Pacific Module 2 passes
Spencer, Thomas ++ Midland Campbell, Elaine Scottish
Struck, Alan ++ International Carr, Lisa Marie Scottish
Sukram, Payal ++ Africa Cattanach, Susan Scottish
Takurukura, Gordon ++ Great Northern Cruickshank, Keith James ++ Scottish
Thiyagarajan, Vaidhyalingam ++ Asia Pacific Fordham, Nikolas Stephen Lawrence Southern
Thomson, Nathan Edward Asia Pacific Hofsli, Carl ++ International
Tingay, Jennifer Alison ++ Southern Hooper, Paul ++ Scottish
Tjivikua, Phortune Africa

46           Institute of Brewing and Distilling Examiners Report 2010   
 
  

McCulloch, Andrew Jaames Scottish Chong, Shun Chiunn Asia Pacific

Milton, Sam ++ Scottish Duke, Antony Ian Great Northerrn
More, Carol ++ Scottish Gibson, Graeme Anndrew Asia Pacific
Pienaar, Schalk Wiillem ++ Africa Jones, Denise International
Walker, Emma-Janne ++ Scottish Kerr, Patrick Irish
Wright, Holly Annnabell ++ Scottish See, Wee Ann Asia Pacific
Turner, Bruce Southern
Module 3 passses
Carson, James ++ Scottish Module 2 passess
Clark, Christopheer Anthony ++ Scottish Annable, Gareth Michhael Midland
Cruickshank, Keith James ++ Scottish Boahene, Isaac Kwakku Africa
Donnell, Rodney Irish Callison, Andrew Iainn ++ Midland
Harrison, Elaine ++ Irish Davies, James Frazeer Asia Pacific
Harrison, Barry Maccdonald Scottish Egan, Bryan Daniiel ++ International
Hooper, Paul ++ Scottish Etheridge, Ashley ++ Midland
Jack, Frances Ruuth ++ Scottish Gunn, Richard Asia Pacific
McHugh, Stephen Joohn Asia Paciffic Penney, Brian D)
(GCBP/GCD
McNally, Darryl Josseph ++ Irish Quinn, Christopherr Michael ++ Midland
Milton, Sam ++ Scottish Rattan, Jack Asia Pacific
Pienaar, Schalk Wiillem ++ Africa
Russell, Ian Alexannder Irish Module 3 passess
Savage, Fiona ++ Irish Appelbee, James ++ Midland
Thomas, Rosalind Priscilla
P Alexandrra Irish Egan, Bryan Daniiel ++ International
Walker, Emma-Janne ++ Scottish Elson, Robert Mark
rk ++ Midland
++ has passed alll modules of the Dipploma in Distilling by accumulation Morris, Steven Jame
mes ++ Southern
Nduati, David Thionng'o ++ Africa
DIPLOMA IN BEVERAGE
E PACKAGIN
NG Paul, Lachlan Ken
enneth ++ Asia Pacific
Rathbone, Sean Graham
ame ++ International
Module 1 passses Townsend, Alexandra K
Kate ++ Midland
Chi, Akosum Africa ++ has passed all modules
m of the Diplooma in Beverage Paackaging by
accumulation

 
 

Instiitute of Brew
wing and Disstilling Exam iners Reportt 2010               47