The Lot Reporting Standard

A lot's brewing behavior is predicted by numbers the seller already has. This standard moves those numbers with the grain.

A gluten-free beer should never fail because information that existed wasn't passed along. Every lot has a protein number; every protein number implies a process. The job of this standard is to make sure both travel with the grain.

Why we take this positionexpand to view

Position. A seller worth buying from reports, with every lot: the lot's identity, its documented gluten status, and the analysis values the seller already holds — protein at minimum, germination and malt analysis where they exist. Gluten Free Brewer buys from, lists, and recommends sellers whose numbers travel with the grain.

Basis. Engineering judgment grounded in production experience, and a proposed standard open for criticism. It asks no seller to generate new information — only to forward what their own paperwork already says.

Why. Sorghum is sold as a commodity, its protein swings lot to lot, and protein drives mash behavior. The numbers that predict the behavior are already measured — at grading, at the seed lab, at the allergen lab — and then the grain ships without them. A reported unusual figure is a process adjustment; the same figure unreported is a failed batch.

The problem forcing it. There is no published malting-sorghum specification and no shared evaluation method, so there is nothing to buy to. Reporting what exists is the only way a brewer can compare lots today.

Compensation or ideal? Both, honestly. Forwarding existing numbers is the right thing regardless and would survive a specification. But the standard is also standing in for a specification that does not exist — once one does, "report your numbers" becomes "meet the spec and report your numbers."

Evidence.

• Protein, germination, gluten status, and malt analysis are measured routinely and sit on certificates the seller already holds — established fact about how grain is graded and sold.
• Lot-to-lot protein variation drives conversion, extract, lautering, and clarity — shown across the cultivar screenings and production malt analyses.
• Limiting evidence: the standard has not yet been run by anyone other than us. Whether sellers will adopt it, and whether brewers use the numbers, is untested.

Open contradictions. None.

What would change our position. Adoption experience would reshape the requirements. A published malting-sorghum specification, met by an identity-preserved supply, would fold this standard into it. Neither would remove the requirement that numbers travel.

Related research asks.

• Ask 5 — Run the proposed evaluation standard — the specification this standard is waiting on.
• Ask 8 — Sorghum malt data from anywhere.

Commercial interests. Prospective, and stated in full on the cultivars page: Gluten Free Brewer intends to earn success-only commissions on malting-sorghum seed, grain, and malt supply it helps bring into existence — none signed as of August 2026 — and Craig Belser holds a royalty interest in Bard's-licensed recipes. This standard applies identically to every seller, including any GFB would earn from; a listing is never conditional on an agreement, and a seller's numbers are judged the same way regardless.

Consequence if wrong. Economic. A brewer who buys a lot without its numbers loses a batch; a seller who won't report them loses a buyer.

Decision owner and status. Craig Belser · Current · last reviewed August 2026.

History. None recorded.

The problem: the grain varies, and the numbers stay behind

Sorghum is not barley. Malting barley arrives pre-solved: bred into a narrow protein window, grown to a specification, and analyzed to standardized brewing methods before a brewer ever touches it. Sorghum is sold as a food and feed commodity. Its lots swing widely in protein content, and protein drives mash behavior — conversion, extract, lautering, clarity. Two lots from the same seller can need meaningfully different processes.

Here is the part that should bother you: the numbers already exist. Protein is measured during FGIS grading. Germination comes from the seed laboratory. Gluten status comes from the allergen laboratory. If the grain was malted, the malt analysis adds diastatic power and extract. Every one of those figures sits on a certificate the seller already paid for — and then the grain ships without them, and the brewer starts guessing.

Gate 1 — Grain Source and Acceptance explains what those certificates are and why acceptance depends on them. Reading a Malt Certificate of Analysis explains what the numbers mean. This page exists because knowing how to read a certificate only helps if the certificate arrives.

What makes a seller worth buying from

A trustworthy seller, for the purposes of this standard, is not a seller with perfect grain. It is a seller whose numbers travel:

• The lot is identified. A specific farm and bin, per Gate 1. A lot that cannot be tied to its source has already failed acceptance.
• The gluten claim is documented, per the site's truly gluten-free standard: no gluten detected by a suitable method, with a certificate — not an assumption.
• The analysis values are reported, per batch, every batch. Honest numbers on an ordinary lot are worth more than silence on a good one. An unusual protein figure, reported, is a process adjustment. The same figure, unreported, is a failed batch and a brewer who blames the grain.

None of this asks the seller to generate new information. It asks them to forward what their own paperwork already says.

The requirements

A seller operating under this standard commits to the following, for every batch:

1. Protein content, reported to the nearest 0.1%. This is the single number that most changes what the brewer should do, and it is already measured during grading.
2. The remaining certificate values, reported as they appear. Moisture, test weight, and grade from FGIS grading; germination from the seed laboratory; DON and aflatoxin screening results; the gluten test result with its method; and, where a malt analysis exists, diastatic power and extract. No new testing is required by this standard. If a value is not on the seller's existing certificates, it is not demanded — the standard routes existing paperwork; it does not invent lab work.
3. Lot identity on every report. The reported values are tied to the lot's source identity so the numbers and the grain cannot separate.
4. The report travels with the shipment. The buyer receives the values with the grain, not on request, not afterward.
5. Reported values may be published for research — anonymized, always. Lot values can enter an open dataset so the actual variability of gluten-free brewing grain finally becomes public knowledge. Seller, farm, and buyer identities are never stated. The data is for research value; the privacy of the people behind it is not negotiable.

What each side gets

The buyer receives characterized grain: the protein figure and supporting values in hand before the mash is designed, on paperwork rather than on faith. Process guidance keyed to protein level is the natural companion to this standard, and it is where this site's brewing-process documentation is headed.

The seller gets something the commodity market doesn't offer them: a buyer pool — the one this site is assembling — that specifically wants documented lots, at the cost of forwarding certificates they already own. Transparency becomes an advantage instead of an exposure.

Get in touch

• Buying grain for gluten-free brewing? Find grain.
• Selling grain or malt and willing to report your lots? List your grain.
• Want help implementing any of this in your brewery or malthouse? Request a consultation.