Proposed: Sorghum Malt Sensory Lexicon (GFB-SML, draft v0.2)
Status: proposed, draft v0.2, never ratified by anyone. No sensory trials were run to produce it. It isn't a lot-release specification, and nothing here qualifies or disqualifies a malt.
The vocabulary
Adopt the term and the definition. Treat every intensity as needing confirmation in this matrix.
The scale is 0–15, in 0.5 increments. 0 means not detected under the stated conditions; 15 is the top of the agreed range for this attribute. NA means not assessed — never convert NA to zero. Score aroma and flavour separately: for each aromatic term record A (orthonasal, sniffing the covered cup) and F (retronasal, during tasting), and don't average them.
Anchor status is the column that matters. Clean means the reference is usable as published. Needs anchor means the attribute is sound but has no reference a taster here can calibrate against — the term stays, and supplying the reference means a panel deriving its intensity.
| Attribute | Definition | Anchor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cereal / grain | General clean cereal character, without requiring toasted, nutty or sweet notes | — | Needs anchor |
| Cooked sorghum | The cooked, unmalted sorghum reference beyond the general cereal note | One documented food-grade sorghum lot, recorded recipe | Needs derivation |
| Starchy | The flat note associated with raw or processed starch-based grain products | Corn starch 2 g in 200 mL water = 3.5 · microwaved potato = 7.0 | Clean |
| Brown | Toasted, nutty, caramelised and sweet impression within the grain complex | — | Needs anchor |
| Sweet aromatics | Aromatics associated with the impression of sweet substances | — | Needs anchor |
| Brown-sweet | Rich, full-bodied, light brown sweet aromatic; may include vanilla and caramelised notes | — | Needs anchor |
| Nutty | Slightly sweet, brown, woody, oily, musty, bitter and astringent aromatics of nuts, seeds and grains | — | Needs anchor |
| Bran | Light dusty brown grain-like impression, may be slightly raw, sweet or bitter | — | Needs anchor |
| Cardboard | Flat note associated with cardboard or paper packaging; may read as stale. A descriptor, not a diagnosis of oxidation | — | Needs anchor |
| Corn-like | Sweet, musty, light brown, slightly sour, with earthy and starchy character | Yellow corn meal = 7.0 · Corn Chex = 13.0 | Clean |
| Woody | Sweet, brown, musty, dark aromatics of dry freshly cut wood | Dry hickory smoker chips = 8.0 · wet apple wood chips = 15.0 | Clean |
| Cocoa | Brown, sweet, dusty, musty, often bitter aromatic of cocoa bean and chocolate | Cocoa powder 1/16 tsp in 200 mL = 6.0 · 1/8 tsp = 12.0 | Clean |
| Toasted cereal | Heated, browned cereal character short of char or smoke | Plain toasted gluten-free rice cracker of a fixed formulation and lot | Needs derivation |
| Caramel | Heated-sugar aromatic character, scored independently of sweet taste | Plain caramelised-sugar syrup, fixed preparation and dilution | Needs derivation |
| Honey-like | Aromatic character matching the selected honey reference, irrespective of sweetness | A specified mild honey lot at a fixed dilution | Needs derivation |
| Coffee | Roasted-coffee aromatic character. Not a proxy for dark colour or bitterness | Plain brewed coffee of fixed roast, lot, strength and age | Needs derivation |
| Burnt/char | Charred or scorched aromatic character beyond ordinary toast; smoke is separate | A commercial burnt-note sensory reference | Needs derivation |
| Smoky | Smoke-like aromatic character, distinct from burnt or charred | A documented food-sensory smoke standard | Needs derivation |
| Musty / dusty | Dusty, musty, papery | Diluted brewed decaf tea = 6.0 · undiluted = 13.0 | Clean |
| Leather | Warm sweet aromatics of tanned hide; may include woody, tobacco, smoky notes | Brewed PU-ERH tea diluted = 4.0 · undiluted = 14.0 | Clean |
| Earthy | Soil-like impression, distinct from bran and from damp-storage mustiness | — | Needs anchor |
| Overall green | Plant-based character: unripe, grassy, leafy, viney or fruity-green | Parsley water 1:6 = 6.0 · 1:3 = 12.0 | Clean |
| Oil-heated | Aromatics of heated cooking oils; lack of freshness with brown and musty notes | Heated safflower oil = 6.0 · heated vegetable oil = 12.0 | Clean |
| Buttery | Dairy aromatics of sweet cream | Imitation butter flavour, 2 drops in 200 mL = 6.0 · 3 drops = 12.0 | Clean |
| Umami | Savoury, salty, flat brothy character | Mushroom broth = 3.0 · mushroom + shrimp = 6.0 · doubled = 12.0 | Clean |
| Sweet | The taste factor of which sucrose is typical | Sucrose 0.25% = 3.0 · 0.50% = 7.0 · 1.0% = 12.0 | Clean |
| Sour | The taste factor associated with citric acid | Citric acid 0.015% = 8.0 · 0.025% = 15.0 | Clean |
| Bitter | The taste factor associated with caffeine | Caffeine 0.01% = 6.0 · 0.02% = 12.0 | Clean |
| Salty | The taste factor of which sodium chloride is typical | NaCl 0.15% = 8.0 · 0.20% = 14.0 | Clean |
| Metallic | Impression of slightly oxidised metal | KCl 0.10% = 8.0 · 0.15% = 14.0 | Clean |
| Astringent | Drying, puckering sensation on tongue and mouth surfaces. Distinct from bitterness | Alum 0.03% = 3.0 · 0.07% = 8.0 · 0.10% = 12.0 | Clean |
| Extract twang | The concentrated-syrup note specific to extract-derived character | — | Needs anchor — carried over from our own working set |
Thirty-two attributes. Sixteen carry a usable anchor, nine need one, and seven have a named reference whose intensity still has to be derived.
The scoring sheet
One page, usable by someone who hasn't read the rest of this document. The anchor sits beside the term, not behind a link.
Lot: ____________ Malt type: ____________ Date: ________ Taster: ________ Matrix: ☐ hot steep ☐ reference-mash wort Serving temp: ________
| Attribute | Anchor to calibrate against | A | F |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cereal / grain | no anchor yet — describe in words | ||
| Cooked sorghum | your retained sorghum reference | ||
| Starchy | corn starch in water 3.5 · potato 7.0 | ||
| Corn-like | corn meal 7.0 · Corn Chex 13.0 | ||
| Woody | hickory chips 8.0 · apple wood 15.0 | ||
| Cocoa | cocoa powder 1/16 tsp 6.0 · 1/8 tsp 12.0 | ||
| Musty / dusty | decaf tea diluted 6.0 · full 13.0 | ||
| Leather | PU-ERH diluted 4.0 · full 14.0 | ||
| Overall green | parsley 1:6 = 6.0 · 1:3 = 12.0 | ||
| Oil-heated | heated safflower 6.0 · vegetable 12.0 | ||
| Buttery | butter flavour 2 drops 6.0 · 3 drops 12.0 | ||
| Umami | mushroom broth 3.0 · +shrimp 6.0 · doubled 12.0 | ||
| Toasted cereal · Caramel · Honey-like · Coffee · Burnt/char · Smoky | reference named, intensity not derived — score by definition | ||
| Earthy | no anchor yet | ||
| Extract twang | no anchor yet | ||
| Brown · Sweet aromatics · Brown-sweet · Nutty · Bran · Cardboard | no anchor yet — score by definition, note that you did |
Tastes and mouthfeel — single score, no A/F split:
| Anchor | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Sweet | sucrose 0.25% 3.0 · 0.50% 7.0 · 1.0% 12.0 | |
| Sour | citric 0.015% 8.0 · 0.025% 15.0 | |
| Bitter | caffeine 0.01% 6.0 · 0.02% 12.0 | |
| Salty | NaCl 0.15% 8.0 · 0.20% 14.0 | |
| Metallic | KCl 0.10% 8.0 · 0.15% 14.0 | |
| Astringent | alum 0.03% 3.0 · 0.07% 8.0 · 0.10% 12.0 |
Other descriptor observed: ________________________________
That last line isn't decoration. This vocabulary has to be allowed to fail — a malt may carry a salient character it doesn't name.
What a panel actually measured, and what to expect from your scores
One trained panel has scored malted sorghum wort and published the numbers. Adetunji and colleagues ran ten assessors with at least 32 hours' prior training on sorghum products across six worts, one of them malted Macia, on a 0–100 scale. That malt scored:
| Attribute, as they named it | Score, 0–100 |
|---|---|
| Malty aroma | 54.2 |
| Malty flavour | 52.9 |
| Cooked-sorghum smell | 39.2 |
| Astringent aftertaste | 14.1 |
| Bitter | 9.9 |
| Sour | 9.4 |
Bitter and sour sat near the floor. Anyone expecting those two to separate one lot from another is likely to be disappointed, and a scoring sheet that treats all twenty-six attributes as equally discriminating will waste panel attention. The grain-derived notes carried the profile.
Expect low intensities across the board. Budner's controlled study brewed the same recipe on sorghum and on barley extract with four ale yeasts and found all nine measured aroma compounds lower in sorghum from day 3 onward. A scale whose top end was agreed on sorghum grain may rarely be reached in wort, which is a reason to confirm the anchors rather than assume them.
· Flavor and sensory directory
Why this page exists
GFB-SME requires a defined sensory panel and says wort and hot-steep aroma should be "scored against a published lexicon, not 'seemed fine'." Then it can't name one for this grain, and says so — it lists building the lexicon as one of its five ranked open pieces of work.
Our register records the search: as of September 2026 we have found no published sensory lexicon for sorghum malt . The nearest miss is Adetunji's panel above, whose attribute definitions were agreed by the panel but never published, and which carries no reference standards. A vocabulary another panel can't reuse isn't a lexicon, which is why the gap survives.
This page is the candidate. It doesn't close the gap; it gives a panel something specific to test.
Where the vocabulary comes from
Six sources, each carrying a different piece — and a different amount of standing.
| Source | What it contributes | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Thao 2018, Kansas State, with Chambers | A 28-attribute lexicon for sorghum grain, each term with a definition and numerically anchored physical references on a 0–15 scale | Sorghum grain and cooked products — the word "malted" appears nowhere in its 85 pages |
| Su et al. 2022, npj Science of Food | A 53-attribute brewing-malt lexicon on a 1–5 scale, separating appearance from flavour, taste and mouthfeel | Barley malt — a structural model, not a sorghum vocabulary |
| Adetunji et al. 2013, J. Inst. Brew. | The only trained-panel descriptive data on sorghum malt wort we have found, and the intensity reality check above | Twelve attributes whose definitions were never printed, with no reference standards |
| Adinsi et al. 2014, Food Science & Nutrition | Thirteen printed descriptor definitions applied to a malted-sorghum beverage, gowe, on a 100 mm line scale — more than most sorghum sensory work provides | A semi-trained panel, no reference standards, and a beverage rather than a wort |
| This site's working set | Nine descriptors published for criticism on Sensory Evaluation of Gluten-Free Malt | Our own observations, never panel-validated |
| This site's roast and thermal descriptors | Six attributes for kilned and roasted character — toasted cereal, caramel, honey-like, coffee, burnt/char, smoky — each with a gluten-free reference, added so roast profiles can be written | A working draft; intensities still to be derived |
Borrowing a term doesn't borrow its validation. Nothing above inherits standing from grain, cookies, barley malt or a fermented beverage.
Descriptors with no anchor yet
Nine attributes need a reference, and seven need deriving. Every definition below is sound — what's missing is a physical thing to calibrate against, which is panel work rather than editing.
| Attribute | Why it has no anchor here |
|---|---|
| Cereal / grain | From our own working set; no transferable reference published for it |
| Earthy | From our own working set; needs separating from bran and from damp-storage mustiness |
| Extract twang | From our own working set rather than any of the source lexicons |
| Brown | Published reference isn't usable on this site; the attribute and its definition stand |
| Sweet aromatics | As above |
| Brown-sweet | As above, and only one reference was ever published for it |
| Nutty | As above |
| Bran | As above |
| Cardboard | As above |
| Cooked sorghum | The reference is a retained sorghum lot, so every panel's differs until someone specifies one |
| Toasted cereal · Caramel · Honey-like · Coffee · Burnt/char · Smoky | Reference named; intensity not yet derived by a panel |
A substitute reference isn't an edit. The published intensities were derived by trained assessors tasting one specific product; supply a different one and the number has to be re-derived with it.
What this page declines to specify
Panel size, assessor training, session design and statistics aren't here. The panel protocol already lives on Sensory Evaluation of Gluten-Free Malt — hot steep against reference-mash wort, and what a panel can't tell you. This page is the vocabulary only.
Two limits worth stating plainly. Sensory has no role in deciding whether a malt is gluten-free, and a clean taste isn't evidence of safety.
What would move this to v0.3
- Supply references for the nine unanchored attributes and derive each intensity against them.
- Confirm the clean anchors hold in wort. Thao's scale is explicitly for sorghum grain, and Budner's volatile data suggests wort intensities run lower than grain.
- Test distinctness — can assessors separate cereal from cooked sorghum, earthy from musty, bitterness from astringency? Kobue-Lekalake's continuous time-intensity method was built for that last pair on sorghum, and is the obvious tool to borrow.
- Anchor the three unanchored terms, or retire them with a reason.
- Score a real malt set across hot steep and reference-mash wort, and publish the numbers.
- Reconcile against Adinsi's thirteen printed definitions, which cover a malted sorghum product and may name a character this set misses.
- Derive intensities for the six roast and thermal attributes, starting with Coffee, Caramel and Toasted cereal, which the roast profiles lean on.
Version history
- v0.2 — 2026-09-24. Six roast and thermal attributes added from this site's descriptive-lexicon draft — toasted cereal, caramel, honey-like, coffee, burnt/char and smoky — each with a gluten-free reference and its intensity still to be derived. Added so roast profiles can describe roasts in this vocabulary. Nothing removed.
- v0.1 — 2026-09-23. First draft. Attribute names, definitions and anchors from Thao 2018 read at source; structure informed by Su et al. 2022; nine working descriptors from this site's sensory page folded in. Nine attributes marked as needing an anchor, one as needing derivation, nothing deleted. No sensory trials performed. Same day: Adetunji 2013's published intensities, Budner 2024's volatile finding, and Adinsi 2014 and Kobue-Lekalake 2009 as sources, all added from the flavour and sensory research directory.
Related
- Sorghum Malt Roast Profiles — roast profiles written in this vocabulary
- Sensory Evaluation of Gluten-Free Malt — the panel protocol and the working descriptor set
- GFB-SME — the standard that asks for this
- Flavor and Sensory research directory — the source lexicons
- Sorghum Malt Flavor and Brewing Character
- Three Worked Beers — where scoring a brew against this vocabulary pays off