Inside the maltings.
Follow the grain. Find cross-contact and process failures.
Two different ways to lose a batch. Gluten cross-contact compromises identity; failures in water, air, time, or heat can compromise malt quality or safety.
Explore the production line
16 stationsEvidence & important distinctions +
Good malt needs two kinds of control
Gluten-free status and malting performance are separate decisions. A clean lot can malt poorly, and excellent-looking malt can contain gluten. Cleaning or sorting is not automatic proof of gluten-free status.
Steeping, germination, and kilning are not dependable gluten-removal steps. Kilning is not assumed to be a validated microbial kill step, and ordinary processing cannot be relied on to eliminate mycotoxins.
This is a time-compressed batch-process model. Transfers and utilities are simplified. Failure markers identify possible failures, not live alarms, measured severity, or formal critical control points.
Species-specific release criteria
Evaluate moisture, germination performance, extract, color, and the enzyme performance needed for the intended brewing method. Native enzyme strength is not a universal pass/fail requirement when the brewing design uses added enzymes. For sorghum, the safety assessment should also address cyanogenic compounds and sprout/rootlet handling.
Sources & further reading
MAGB · Equipment and process sequence (barley reference) ↗Gluten Free Brewer · Malting and malt release ↗FDA · Gluten-free labeling framework ↗FDA · Preventive controls for biological and chemical hazards ↗Nic Phiarais et al. · Buckwheat kilning and enzyme activity ↗Tokpohozin et al. · Sorghum malting and cyanogenic compounds ↗Equipment-specific scenarios apply these principles to a shared maltings. This educational guide does not certify a facility, batch, or operating schedule.