# Growing intermediate wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop in the United States: exploring the multifunctionality of agriculture within socio-technical constraints

Christelle Ginot, Erica Shoenberger, Valentin D Picasso, Olivier Duchene

► To cite this version:

Christelle Ginot, Erica Shoenberger, Valentin D Picasso, Olivier Duchene. Growing intermediate wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop in the United States: exploring the multifunctionality of agriculture within socio-technical constraints. 2025. hal-05039353

HAL Id: hal-05039353

https://hal.science/hal-05039353v1

Preprint submitted on 18 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
1 Growing intermediate wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop
2 in the United States: exploring the multifunctionality of
3 agriculture within socio-technical constraints
4

5 Abstract

6 The past decade has seen increasing consideration, stakeholder involvement and investments
7 for growing intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) as a perennial grain crop in the upper Midwest,
8 USA. IWG has been presented as a multipurpose crop able to combine multiple agricultural
9 goods and ecosystem services. The objective of this paper is to comprehend the present IWG
10 situation in the Midwest from the standpoint of farmers growing IWG, encompassing their
11 objectives, practices, and the obstacles they confront. Additionally, it will address the notion
12 of multifunctionality within the framework of introducing a minor crop into farming systems.
13 In total, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted with IWG growers in the Upper
14 Midwestern US. Results revealed that beyond direct agronomic benefits mentioned by
15 farmers, growing IWG was motivated by a broader approach to agriculture. Thanks to its
16 specific features, IWG was for farmers a tool to accomplish various non-commercial
17 dimensions of farming (e.g., environmental conservation, education, community building) and
18 to fulfil their roles as producers, environmental stewards and citizens. In addition, the regional
19 socio-technical system appeared to impose strong constraints on IWG cropping through
20 profitability assessment and processing issues. Cropping practices reflected the balance
21 between uniform technical recommendations and adaptations to the farming system and
22 farmer's expertise. This paper provides insights into farmers' perspectives and concerns
23 regarding IWG in the US.
24 **Key words:** Kernza®, socio-technical system, farmers perspectives, multipurpose crop,  
perennial agriculture

26

27 1. Introduction

28 Growing perennial grain crops for human consumption has been researched for the past
29 decades. Falling within the vision of “perennial agriculture”, whose advocates can be found
30 both inside and outside academic circles, the intention is to combine the positive attributes of
31 human-selected annual crops with the advantages of perenniality, i.e. reduced soil
32 disturbances and production costs. In fact, perennial grain systems aim at advancing along the
33 ecological successional gradient to reduce disturbances and enhance nutrient cycling and soil
34 functionality (Crews et al. 2016). Almost thirty years ago, intermediate wheatgrass
35 (Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey, commercial name Kernza®,
36 hereafter IWG) was proposed as a potential perennial grain within academic circles. Both
37 grain and forage production could be targeted and ecosystem services — defined as “the
38 ecosystem structure (e.g. landscape matrix) or processes (e. g. in the Common International
39 Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)): filtration, sequestration, storage,
40 accumulation) from which humans benefit.” (Dardonville et al. 2022) — are foundational to
41 the proposed advantages of IWG. These services include soil and water conservation,
42 improved soil health, weed control, nutrient use efficiency, and carbon sequestration
43 (Pimentel et al. 2012). Farmer surveys and interviews have corroborated the central place of
44 ecosystem services, notably a year-round soil cover and a deep, dense rooting system that
45 improves soil fertility, in farmers’ interest in perennial grains (Marquardt et al. 2016;
46 Wayman et al. 2019; Lanker et al. 2020; Ginot et al. 2024). Thus, recent agronomic studies
47 have explored the potential of IWG to deliver these expected ecosystem services, in
48 comparison with annual crops. They showed encouraging results, for instance on soil structure and water infiltration (Rakkar et al. 2023; Kundert et al. 2024), earthworm (Förster et al. 2023) and fungal (McKenna et al. 2020) communities or reduction of nitrogen leaching (Jungers et al. 2019). Whether hoped for or already informed, the combination of different marketable products and ecosystem services lead scientists to present IWG as a multipurpose crop (Duchene et al. 2019a). In this perspective, one purpose is not necessarily maximised at the expense of all others, as in most cash crops, but the balance between different purposes is looked for, whether they include commercial remuneration or not. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that a single crop reaches all that purposes that have been outlined at once, so that prioritization is needed and this can be done by both breeding and agronomy (Jungers et al. 2023). Land allocation, rotations and cropping practices are then derived from this balance between targeted purposes (Duchene et al. 2019a; Ginot et al. 2024).

60 The possibility to combine multiple purposes in one crop got IWG considerable attention in the past decade. Until 2010, efforts to improve IWG grain yield relied on less than 61 half of the effort of one plant breeder per year (DeHaan et al. 2023) but since then, IWG 62 breeding has expanded into full-scale programs across Minnesota, Kansas, and Utah (USA); 63 Manitoba (Canada), Uppsala (Sweden) and Omsk (Russia). This came with increasing 64 international research in agronomy, food science, and soil science programs, supported by 65 increasing funding and broader participation. Agronomic research mainly focused on i) 66 characterizing IWG physiology and developmental morphology, ii) investigating the effects 67 of various agronomic practices on grain and forage production, iii) studying the effects of 68 IWG on various ecosystem services, most often in comparison with annual crops. The number 69 of IWG growers has also expanded, although most have small test plots for the moment. In 70 2024, there were 1,323 IWG hectares under 75 active growers across 15 states (The Land 71 Institute, 2025) in the United States. Just 6 years prior, in 2017, there were 32 active growers 72
only (Lanker et al. 2020). Farmer involvement led to the production of technical resources, such as the 2023 Kernza® Grower Guide (Tautges et al. 2023), aiming at transferring results from research and early experiences into practical guidance for growers, but also to the development of institutional support for technology transfer and adoption (Cureton et al. 2023). In fact, commercialization of Kernza® requires a coalition of a number of key actors across growers, supply chain actors and end-users (Cureton et al. 2023). Stakeholders have emerged to clean, process, and market the crop under the commercial name Kernza®, such as Perennial Pantry and the Perennial Promise Grower's Cooperative in Minnesota, Sustain-A-Grain in Kansas, and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute in Wisconsin. These groups play key roles in supplying Kernza® grain and flour to local brewers, bakers, and distillers. Additionally, regional companies craft beers, whiskies, baked goods, pastas, and more using its distinctive nutty flour. Nationally, Kernza® has gained traction with brands such as Patagonia Provisions (Kernza® Lager), General Mills (Cascadian Farm Climate Smart Kernza® Grains Cereal), and Kodiak Cakes (Kernza® Cakes Flapjack & Waffle Mix).

Despite this expansion, IWG remains a niche in the US agricultural landscape — measured by acreage, grower and processor numbers, research funding, and product volumes. IWG is often promoted as a transformative or disruptive technology, embracing ecological and socially driven arguments at both farm and global scales, so that it may serve as an example of innovation and niche structuration, as illustrated by Cureton et al. (2023), and offer insights into the development of minor crops. Recognising niches as “incubation rooms” for radical innovation, Geels (2004) points to a tension likely to arise between the niche and its surrounding socio-technical system. Socio-technical systems are defined as “the linkages between elements necessary to fulfil societal functions (e.g. transport, communication, nutrition)”; they “encompass production, diffusion and use of technology [and] are the outcome of the activities of human actors.” (Geels 2004) The term “regime” is used to further
stress the roles of rules and institutions in these systems. The discrepancy between the existing socio-technical system and the specificities of emerging novel crops is known to create lock-ins at every level of the production and value chain which hinder their development (Meynard et al. 2018).

The degree of radicality of IWG stems specifically from its potential to combine multiple purposes in one crop and to value as much, at least in theory, non-commercial purposes and marketable goods. Consequently, the recognition of the non-commercial value of the crop led to the presentation of IWG as an opportunity for multifunctional agriculture (Ryan et al. 2018). The concept of multifunctional agriculture was introduced in the 1990s by international organizations (OECD, FAO, European Commission) to recognize the joint production of commodities—marketable agricultural goods—and non-commodities, i.e. "outputs of agriculture for which markets do not exist or function inadequately" (Renting et al. 2009). It refuses to reduce agriculture to market interactions and acknowledges that agricultural activities fulfil functions that do not entail commercial remuneration, i.e. non-commodities that are inherently unsuitable for such compensation (e.g. food security, social structures, rural employment, environmental quality etc) (Groupe Polanyi 2008).

Nevertheless, in the original *market regulation approach* of multifunctional agriculture (Renting et al. 2009), the functions of agriculture are commodified, i.e. are considered as sources of remuneration either from the market or the state (e.g. carbon markets, payments for ecosystem services). In contrast, an *actor-oriented approach* of multifunctional agriculture also emerged, moving away from economic considerations, to recognize multifunctional agriculture as a socio-political construction driven by stakeholders’ decision-making process (Renting et al. 2009). This perspective conveys a socially and ecologically driven worldview where non-commercial functions are recognised and protected for their role in the communities, i.e. for themselves rather than as potential additional sources of remuneration.
Thus, as IWG continues to develop in the Midwest, it seems interesting to shed light on the links between the utilizations of the crop, its cropping practices, and the broader-scale perennial agriculture vision and intensions in terms of multifunctional agriculture. Through semi-structured interviews, we aimed at addressing two main questions: i) to what extent is farmers' choice to grow IWG part of a wider rationale regarding agriculture functions? and ii) how is IWG cultivated and in what way do cropping practices reflect current farming challenges and farmers' attempts to improve IWG ability to fulfil certain functions of agriculture?

131

132 2. Material and Methods

133 2.1 Selection of participants

134 In total, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted with IWG farmers. To recruit participants, we reached out to all current and former IWG farmers in WI via email, explaining the goals of the interviews and inviting them to participate. In MN, we attended the Perennial Promise Grower's Cooperative annual meeting where we described the project and extended the invitation to its members. Interviews were conducted in January and February 2024 with respondents who voluntarily agreed to participate. These interviews, lasting 1-2 hours, were conducted in person, over the phone, or via video call. Interviews followed the approved Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol (ID: 2023-1761).

142 Interviews were organized in 4 parts: i) history and general information about the farm, ii) description of the farming system and practices, iii) description of the socio-economic context, iv) interests in IWG, practices and indicators of successes. At the end, a discussion of the research and breeding priorities was added. Interviews aimed at characterizing each farmer's production system and context (technical, economic, social) to
perform a new set of analytical coding (Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). These new
analytical codes aimed at capturing farmers’ insights regarding the functions of agriculture in
society and their opinions about the organization of the agri-food sector. Consequently, they
were not restricted to IWG, although the alternatives proposed for the agri-food sector were
captured through the discussion of the IWG case. The grid was built iteratively from the
content of interviews. The final grid was made of 6 codes for the functions of agriculture and
2 codes for the organisation of the agri-food sector (Erreur ! Source du renvoi
introuvable.).

179 **Table 2**

180

181 **3 Results and Discussion**

182 **3.1 Description of participants**

183 Participants were primarily located in the Upper Midwest, mostly from MN and WI, and two
184 farmers from IA and KS (어 Error ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). This was not
185 representative of the total number of IWG growers in each state. At the time of the interviews,
186 53% had been growing IWG for at least two years, while the rest had either grown it for one
187 year or had recently established their first IWG field (Figure 1; Table 3). All fields but 2
188 ranged from 1 to 8ha. Of the 15 participants, 11 were men, one was a farming couple (man
189 and woman), and three were women. Additionally, 40% of participants identified as
190 conventional farmers, while 60% were organic (Table 3).

191 A notable characteristic of this group was that 67% relied primarily on off-farm
192 income, meaning that they had another job. These farmers were deeply engaged in crop and
193 livestock diversification practices, with 73% integrating crops and livestock and 20%
experimenting with agroforestry by incorporating fruit and nut trees into their operations.

They were also highly involved in their local and farming communities—partnering with
regional universities on on-farm research, hosting field days for schools and farmer
gatherings, selling directly at farmers markets, and participating in local farm education
initiatives. Thus, participants of this study had permissive external (second source of income,
market, community, etc.) and internal (farming system, general finance, land or time
pressures) conditions for agricultural activity that allowed the exploration of disruptive
innovations. These characteristics may have explained the positive attitude of IWG growers
towards the risks and uncertainties associated with this novel crop that have been previously
reported in the US (Lanker et al. 2020) and France (Ginot et al. 2024). In fact, literature
pertaining to the early adoption of innovations in agriculture has highlighted the pivotal roles
played by financial resources (including off-farm incomes), risk perception and aversion,
social networks and perceptions of the innovation in engaging with novel practices or
technologies (Dessart et al. 2019; Romanova et al. 2022). The boldness of IWG growers to
take on a high-risk grain crop is well recognized (Cureton et al. 2023).

Figure 1

Table 3
211 3.2 IWG conveyed a rationale for farms and for agriculture

212 3.2.1 IWG as a multipurpose crop: targeting agronomic benefits

213 Farmers' interests for growing IWG were marketable products and ecosystem services. Grain
214 production was a target for all farmers, but they pointed out a discrepancy between the
215 expected yields and what they could really get, jeopardizing the profitability of the crop.

216 Using forage as a second income source was subject to different views depending on the
217 region and the farmer. For instance, Farmer 3 reported that KS farmers value forage to the
218 point they sometimes sacrifice grain, while it is rarely used in MN because, as explained by
219 Farmer 1, "there is not enough use for it and the quality isn't good enough. In MN, there are
220 not many dairies that would use it, so that unless you have animals on the farm (and very few
221 have because it is very expansive), the value is not there". Some farmers perceived IWG as
222 too dusty and not the best for high quality hay, but the majority was keen to produce forage.

223 In fact, 10 of the interviewees mentioned being interested in or already using IWG as a dual-
224 purpose crop, all having livestock on the farm or on neighboring farms. Finally, 5 farmers
225 aimed at using the straw, mainly as bedding, on their farm or to give/sell. Straw was never the
226 primary objective, with the notable exception of Farmer 9 who planted IWG in his alley
227 cropping system for the purpose of producing straw as close as possible to trees to facilitate
228 mulching. The products that were aimed for were the fruits, and IWG was aimed to protect
229 and "feed" the trees, replacing the straw that was currently brought with a shovel.

230 In total, 73% of the farmers talked about ecosystem services as a motivation for IWG
231 cropping. Soil health was mentioned numerous times throughout the interviews. In farmers'
232 discourses, it included enhancing soil structure, building organic matter, retaining moisture,
233 using deep tillage for better water infiltration, and sequestering carbon. These benefits were
234 first associated with IWG deep rooting system, more than year-round soil cover or reduced
235 tillage. There was a general agreement that IWG could be an excellent tool for reducing
236 erosion on farms in the upper Midwest, and the crop was specifically targeted at slopping
237 fields. With a few years of experience with the crop, some farmers further reported field
238 observations of soil health improvements when rotating back to annual crops, which they
239 linked to increased organic matter, better soil aggregation, and improved water infiltration.

240 They also noted that IWG's roots could hold moisture and boost soil biotic activity.

241 Surprisingly, nutrient capture and improvement of water quality was only cited twice, by two
242 farmers having water streams on their properties. Finally, interviewees valued the multiple
243 purposes of the crop and its potential to transform farming systems while keeping a shorter
timeline than trees. It was sometimes perceived as a first transitional step toward organic
244 farming or agroforestry. Thus, the potential of IWG to act as a multipurpose crop, often
245 promoted by academic literature, also materialized in farmers' discourses. These results
246 regarding IWG marketable product and expected ecosystem services were in line with
247 previous studies (Lanker et al. 2020; Ginot et al. 2024).
248

249 3.2.2 IWG as a tool for the multifunctionality of agriculture: targeting benefits for society

250 Nevertheless, our results suggest that interests in IWG were thought beyond the direct
251 agronomic benefits that farmers could get and aligned with an overall farm strategy that was
252 built upon a more global approach to the social, environmental, and economic functions of
253 agriculture: "Having a farm is a responsibility but also an opportunity." (Farmer 15). In line
254 with the findings of Cureton et al. (2023), farmers did not separate technical innovation from
255 the potential for social and cultural innovation. Farmers 10, 12 and 13 mentioned being
256 inspired by "perennial agriculture," citing Mark Shepard's 2013 book (Shepard 2013) as a key
257 reference. Farmers 8 and 9 referred to "agroforestry" as the model to emulate, once again
258 highlighting concerns for soil health. Farmer 12 went further by referring to the
259 interdependence between animal health, soil health and farmer well-being. These insights
260 suggest that IWG appealed to these farmers because it aligned with the "perennial agriculture
261 vision” and its potential for transformative effects. At the same time, it remained an annual
262 analogue crop, making it less risky and easier to manage than long-term perennials.

263 During the interviews, farmers spontaneously identified 6 primary functions of
264 agriculture for which they wished to take action. Farmers emphasized the importance of
265 **producing food for human consumption**, in opposition to the prevailing Midwest corn-
266 soybean system where most land is dedicated to animal feed and ethanol production. They
267 further went against the system of economies of scale for food production: “Capitalism is the
268 biggest impediment to Kernza® development: why we have terrible food in the first place is
269 because it is cheap and easy so people will buy it. It is much harder to deliver high quality
270 food on a large scale” (Farmer 14). Farmers also highlighted their **environmental concerns**.

271 They mentioned all the conservation practices they adopted to improve soil health and control
272 erosion (“I want to grow soil,” said Farmer 7), enhance water quality and nutrient cycling (“I
273 want the farm stream clean and [don’t] want the nitrates to eventually run off into the Gulf of
274 Mexico,” said Farmer 2), and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint (“I’m concerned
275 about the biosphere,” said Farmer 12). A third functionality mentioned was **education and
276 information**. Farmers believed they could share information more effectively through private
277 discussions (on farms and at markets), field days, demonstrations, and even art (theatre and
278 earthwork). “So few people understand where their food comes from. There is just no
279 thinking about it,” remarked Farmer 7. Farmer 12 added, “Part of our job is to educate people
280 and teach them how to use these products. I am not an expert, but I can speak to average
281 consumers about it.” Field days were a common way to showcase innovative practices,
282 whether to neighbouring farmers (Farmers 7 and 8), children (Farmer 6), or policymakers
283 (Farmer 7). Farming was also perceived as an activity to **build local communities and foster
284 social interactions**. “Farming is a community project almost no matter what!” stated Farmer
285 1. Building relationships with consumers was a driving motivation for farmers engaged in
286 direct sales and several expressed a desire to see their farms as public spaces for leisure, such
287 as artistic events (e.g., music or earthwork). Farms and their products were viewed as means
288 for building strong connections, not only with consumers but also with other farmers,
289 enabling the sharing of information and experiences. Finally, farmers aimed to be **innovators**
290 **and agents of change**. They sought new practices and technologies, such as novel crops or
291 varieties. Interviewees rarely experimented alone as they were often connected to farmer-led
292 groups, universities, or non-profit organizations (section 4.1). On-farm research projects
293 ranged from specific practices (e.g., intercropping, no-till) to long-term agronomic systems
294 (e.g., agroforestry, alley cropping) and monitoring of biodiversity and soil health indicators.
295 This type of projects was mentioned by most participants which suggests that innovation is an
296 important part of their work.

297 Previous studies demonstrated that the functions of agriculture can be linked to the
different roles of farmers as producers, owners and citizens (Primdahl et al. 2013). In our
298 study, the role of producer was not tied to commodity production or economic rationality, as
299 in Primdahl et al. (2013)'s findings. Instead, it focused on producing food and feed even
300 though it was not always the most profitable choice. One farmer remarked: "Growing
301 perennial forages is a value-based decision. Do I make more money than with corn? No." This
302 was associated with crop rotation diversification, none of them having to the prevailing corn-
303 soybean system of the region. Besides, farmers often saw themselves as **environmental**
304 **stewards**, prioritizing soil, water, and biodiversity health. Practices like no-till farming and
305 growing perennial crops were justified at multiple scales—farm, regional, national, and even
306 global, with the aim of respecting and favouring ecological processes. Innovation to improve
307 farming systems bridged the producer and environmental steward roles. Finally, farmers
308 embraced the **role of citizen** through education, community-building, and public engagement.
309 The farm was no longer a place of production only, but it was also a place to welcome public
310
311 for learning or for recreational activities, and farm products were central artefacts for these
312 processes. This role extended beyond the farm boundaries, motivating activities like direct
313 sales and, for one farmer, participating in public debates.

314 3.3 IWG cultivation was embedded in a socio-technical system

315 3.3.1 Growing IWG: the necessity for economic profitability

316 The organization of the value chain for IWG was spontaneously discussed in 80% of the
317 interviews and central in farmers’ discourse. This was associated with both economic and
318 technical concerns that shed light on farmers’ embeddedness in a socio-technical system,
319 where profitability and food chains processing and logistics are decisive criteria. In fact, IWG
320 was promoted as fulfilling multiple on-farm purposes and enabling farmers to act as food
321 producers, environmental stewards and citizens (section 4.2) and the concept of the
322 commodity itself was directly questioned by farmers: “I don’t want a commodity system; I
323 want to grow food” (Farmer 7). However, IWG economic profitability was a necessary
324 requirement as it was previously observed in France (Ginot et al. 2024), and its assessment
325 was dominated by the prevailing valuation system of cash crops in the Midwest. The
326 possibility to market IWG grain for human consumption was a central concern for making
327 this crop economically sustainable. In fact, farmers pointed to the lack of a consistent and
328 reliable market for IWG that made production a risky and uncertain venture. They attributed
329 this uncertainty to three main factors: i) the high price of IWG grains, ii) the lack of resources
330 for companies to invest in testing new processes and recipes tailored to the grain, and iii) the
331 mismatch between the small volumes produced by farmers and the large-scale processing and
332 marketing operations of American companies. This strongly supports Jungers et al. (2023)’s
333 idea that “developing markets and supply chains for emerging perennial crops is a major
334 barrier to their incorporation into agricultural systems”. Authors further argue that “tightly
335 linking production to market demand also has opportunities to increase grower economic
security” (Jungers et al. 2023). Research on the development of minor crops highlighted similar economic impediments to their development and further showed that the adoption of a minor crop may require specific investments for farmers (e.g. machinery, crop trials, labor) so that it is crucial to guarantee a stable market and technical support (Meynard et al. 2018). A recent analysis of IWG production and Kernza® commercialisation rendered similar conclusions (Cureton et al. 2023).

Consequently, farmers discussed IWG pricing because it constituted a pivotal element in their anticipated earnings. In the interviews, the high price of IWG grains was partly linked to the low yields, coupled with the fact that lowering production costs did not offset the yield gap. Farmer 4 explained: “The only important thing is how much dollars we can generate by 346 acre. So, it’s not just about yield—it’s also about the price the grain will sell for. If we 347 produce more but the price drops, the amount of money can remain unchanged. But indeed, 348 lowering Kernza® price is a challenge today, so we would like higher yields.” This reasoning 349 further demonstrated that the relationship between price and yields must be viewed in the 350 context of land price which plays as an opportunity cost, a point echoed by Farmer 1: “In MN, 351 the benchmark is corn. And that is a fact. If Kernza® is not able to compete with corn, it 352 won’t be possible. If you make it competitive enough and if make it easier for growers, then 353 the landscape will change. Because the price of land is very high”. Thus, farmland lease has 354 been identified as a strong barrier to adoption of conservation practices in the US, and of IWG 355 in particular (Cureton et al. 2023). When asked about priorities for research and breeding, 356 Farmer 6 mentioned two priorities: increasing yields and supporting farmer income, 357 explaining, “Farmers need to be productive, or you won’t be around tomorrow!”. 358

These results show that farmers were tied to an obligation of profitability that applied to IWG in the same way as any cash crop. Discussions around IWG pricing reflect contrasting rationalities and objectives between stakeholders, considering the crop “as, alternatively, a
361 high-value non-commodity grain that substantially supports growers and rural communities in the transition to organic and regenerative organic agriculture; a widely-consumed and
362 modestly more affordable climate-smart food used at higher inclusion rates in products; or a scalable market-driven tool for water quality protection.” (Cureton et al. 2023). Thus, farmers
363 found themselves engaged in two processes that were in a state of constant tension. Firstly, a process of "legitimization" (conforming to markets, rules or habits) which involved the
364 adherence to the prevailing socio-technical regime in which economic rationality dominates.
365
366
367
368 In fact, “legitimacy is achieved first and foremost through the viability of a technology to perform on farms and in products, and its ability to achieve given societal
369 outcomes”(Cureton et al. 2023). This last element points to the second process, a process of
370 "transgression" of rules or habits, in which alternative social and environmental rationalities
371 were asserted through the selection of specific crops and cropping systems. The two processes
372 were essential to each other, in that the new crop must be legitimized so as not to discredit
373 niche innovation altogether, while at the same time retaining the transgressive attributes that gave it its own identity. In this context, institutional support is crucial for scaling innovation
374 and alleviate the risk otherwise assumed entirely by farmers (Cureton et al. 2023). Public or
375 private support such as carbon markets or payments for ecosystem services could alleviate
376 farmers’ dependency to the land and food markets but many IWG growers do not currently
377 rely on these mechanisms (J. Jungers, personal communication). Having another non-farming
378 source of income may alleviate this pressure to profitability, probably explaining why farmers
379 with a dual activity are over-represented among our interviews.
380
381
382 3.3.2 Organizing the IWG value chain: finding a balance between centralization and localized food systems
383
384 Downstream production, a discussion emerged around the degree of centralization of IWG value chain, i.e. the number of middlemen. As confirmed by the literature (Cureton et al.
385
386 2023), the crop was unanimously described by farmers as challenging, labor-intensive, and
387 very expensive to clean and process, questioning who should perform these tasks and bear the
388 associated costs. This issue stemmed from a disparity in the level of grain cleanness between
389 the raw product derived from the combine and the finished ingredients that processing
390 companies require for their recipes (such as flour, flakes, or cleaned whole grains). An
391 estimated 40% of bin grain —containing stems, clean and hulled grain, weed seeds, and other
392 debris—is lost during the cleaning process (The Land Institute, 2025). Many interviewees
393 stored the grain on-farm in gravity bins however cleaning was mostly done off-farm and
394 coupled with other farmers' grains. Limited time and resources further complicated post-
395 harvest management, which led to missed harvests and unprocessed seed sitting on farms
396 (Farmer 5). Some farmers saw on-farm cleaning and processing as a potential income stream,
397 but for most, it was unrealistic due to limited time, expertise, and machinery. On the other
398 side, small-scale processing companies cannot afford to handle the cleaning, dehulling and
399 milling of the grain, and production volumes are too small to attract large-scale companies.

400 This illustrates the need to link the development and transfer of knowledge on
401 breeding and cropping practices with cascading innovation in the storage, cleaning,
402 processing and marketing of the new crop (Jungers et al. 2023). Linking these two sides is
403 necessary to transform IWG from an invention, based on the scientific (genetic and
404 agronomic) development of a perennial grain crop, into an innovation that integrates a socio-
405 institutional context (Cureton et al. 2023). These challenges, combined with added logistical
406 and transaction costs, are also well-documented barriers to the development of minor crops
407 (Meynard et al. 2018). As a result, there was a general agreement that middlemen were
408 necessary, a thereby some type of centralization. Farmer 3 summed up the dilemma: "That
409 step [middlemen for cleaning and milling] is what everybody needs, but that is a step that
410 nobody can afford". However, developing a centralized system raised concerns about
411 increased trucking costs and environmental impacts. Farmer 13 regretted that the grain produced in MN and WI was sent to North Dakota for cleaning and processing, before being marketed in Chicago or Minneapolis, thereby blowing away all the carbon sequestered by the crop. In addition, as farmers aimed at educated people and building a relationship with consumers (section 3.2.2), small scale and local chains were preferred. These findings support the idea of concentrating IWG production into specific regional areas for maximizing environmental benefits, logistical costs and community leadership, as it was done in Minnesota (Cureton et al. 2023).

419 This topic needs further analysis and a dedicated study, to determine the extent to which social and ecological benefits associated with IWG can be influenced by the structure and length of the value chain. At the local scale, functions such as food production may quickly reach limitations due to profitability, processing, and distribution constraints, which require socio-technical systems at larger scales. In contrast, ecological functions like soil improvement may thrive locally, although their broader impact on agricultural sustainability depends on widespread adoption. The long-term viability of IWG in regional and global systems hinges on aligning food production with socio-technical infrastructures that support scaling. However, differences between states or regions may exists as it has been illustrated between Minnesota and Wisconsin (Cureton et al. 2023). On that note, the fact that 10 of our interviewees were in Wisconsin, where the market is less structured than in Minnesota, may have influenced the present results on the structuration of the value chain. Previous research on perennial grains in Africa highlights the need to consider the economic and political context beyond farm boundaries such as economic and power structures, land tenure, and markets to understand perennial grain adoption (Isgren et al. 2020). The political ecology literature may be used to address the justice dimensions of perennial agriculture at different scales and reveal which groups benefit and which are disadvantaged (Isgren et al. 2020). Our
findings aligned with this perspective. Farmers spontaneously raised issues related to the IWG in such a way that they naturally became a platform for broader discussions about how the agri-food sector should be organized.

3.4 Experimenting and improving cropping practices: a way to move along the multifunctionality gradient?

Cropping practices translate the functions of agriculture into actions, as farm scale is where we can observe tangible changes and “the most direct expression of multifunctional action and thought” (Wilson 2008). Thus, a recent agronomic study demonstrated that different sets of cropping practices led to varying levels of multifunctionality and modulated the performance of agricultural functions taken separately (e.g., biodiversity conservation, predation, food and fiber production, labor requirements) (Alignier et al. 2024). Regarding IWG, it has been shown that crop management (land allocation, rotations, practices) reflects farmers’ objectives in terms of products and ecosystem services (Duchene et al. 2019b; Ginot et al. 2024), and attempts have been made to link crop management strategies to potential functions (e.g. soil health, pest suppression) (Ryan et al. 2018).

As a relatively new crop, IWG is still in the early stages of development and farmers experiment with different management strategies. Table 4 illustrates the variation in farmers' decisions regarding establishment, fertilization, weed management, livestock integration, grain harvest, and storage. While technical guides such as the *Kernza Grower Guide* (Tautges et al. 2023) provide recommendations, farmers' decisions are also shaped by biophysical, technical, and socio-economic constraints unique to each farm, as well as expertise.

Consequently, some IWG management practices were very similar between interviewees, while others were rather diverse. For instance, stand establishment was relatively consistent across farms. Nearly all farmers planted in the fall to reduce weed pressure associated with spring planting, using seeding rates of 15–25 kg ha⁻¹ with 18 cm row spacing, and challenges
461 included weed seed contamination, low seedling populations, and, when no-till drills were used, inconsistent no-till drill performance. One farmer broadcasted seeds. In contrast, weed management was a common challenge among farmers, especially in former hayfields (Farmers 10, 12), but practices varied. While the Tautges et al. (2023) advise against planting in weedy fields, some farmers had no choice: IWG was often grown on marginal lands due to its experimental status and the risks associated with low yields and uncertain developing market (Lanker et al. 2020). Multiple farmers managed weeds through mowing (Farmers 6, 13, 14) or overseeding with legumes (Farmer 8) while one conventional farmer (Farmer 6) used 2,4-D amine herbicide, the only product labelled for IWG grain (Shoenberger et al., 2023). Another example is forage management strategies that varied based on farm-specific constraints and regional socio-technical systems, so that it was less uniform than establishment practices. Factors such as the availability of forage markets, harvest equipment and attitudes toward hay quality shaped these decisions (section 3.2.1).

474 However, during the interviews, the functions of agriculture associated with IWG seemed to be inherently supported by growing IWG on the farm, due to its morphological traits and particular grains, rather than associated with specific management practices. Its presence on the farm was expected to provide living cover, extensive root systems, human-edible grains, and forage potential. As a perennial crop with a relatively disruptive status, IWG fostered discussions among farmers, researchers, and food processors, positioning it as more than just a production crop—it represented a collective recognition of its potential to address sustainability challenges, and reconsider the process of food commodification (section 3.2.2). In this way, IWG can be seen as a “political crop,” serving as “a co-producer of agrarian change” (Fischer et al. 2022), or as an “anti-commodity” defined as “an enduring form of production and action in opposition either to actual commodities and their existing functions, or to wider social processes of commodification (...). It refers to a range of local
486 productive processes associated with values other than the pure economic (...)."

487 (Hazareesingh and Maat 2016). Nevertheless, we hypothesize that IWG on-field management

488 may modulate the extent to which each functionality and purpose is addressed. This can occur

489 either through its direct effects on elements and ecological processes of the agroecosystem

490 (farmers as environmental stewards), or through the grain production that determines the

491 possibility to gather people around a farm product (farmers as food producers and citizens).

492 Further study is required on this topic to assess whether the potential of IWG to fulfil multiple

493 purposes at farm scale and to satisfy farmers' rationale regarding the functions of agriculture

494 is reached and if some practices are more suited than others for that purpose. The degree to

495 which the multifunctionality of agriculture is addressed at farm scale may vary between farm

496 systems, contingent on the extent to which IWG is integrated with other agricultural

497 components and affected by the broader socio-technical system, and the impact of cropping

498 practices on IWG production and ecosystem services. Figure 2 summarises these findings to

499 illustrate how IWG is intended to increase the multifunctionality of agriculture at farm scale.

500 Table 4

501 Figure 2

502

503 Conclusion

504 The value of IWG lied in its ability to integrate multiple purposes and supporting farmers as

505 food producers, environmental stewards, and citizens. Its disruptive nature as a perennial crop

506 is probably a catalyst of out-of-the-box thinking. However, even as a niche and experimental

507 crop, the multipurpose aspect of the crop was difficult to achieve at the local level, as some

508 purposes, such as food-grade grain production, depended on more globally structured value
chains whose integration criteria were difficult to meet for an under-domesticated crop. In
addition, economic profitability tended to dominate the crop valuation despite the stated social
and environmental objectives and status of IWG as an “non-commodity” or even an “anti-
commodity”. However, these initiatives with perennial grains are a tangible sign of the desire
of certain farmers to move agricultural systems towards models that promote
multifunctionality.

515

516 Declarations

517 Author contributions: Conceptualization, E.S., C.G., O.D.; Design of the study and
518 methodology, E.S. and C.G.; Investigation, E.S. and C.G.; Formal analysis: E.S. and C.G.;
519 Supervision: O.D., V.D.P.; Writing—original draft preparation: E.S. and C.G.; Writing—
520 review and editing: E.S., C.G., O.D., V.D.P.

521 Acknowledgements: Authors would like to warmly thank all the farmers who took time to
522 answer our questions and share their experiences. Additionally, a special thank is due to Dr
523 Michael Bell and Dr. Marisa Lanker for their insights at the early stage of the study, and Dr.
524 Jake Jungers and Dr. Christophe David for their inputs and advices at the finishing stage of
525 this paper.

526 **Financial support:** This work was supported by the mobility grant from the “Thomas
527 Jefferson Fund”; the BiodivClim ERA-Net COFUND program [grant numbers
528 549R.8003.20]; the Nuzum Kickapoo Valley Reforestation Fund; the University of
529 Wisconsin-Madison Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems Summer Mini Grant; and
530 University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Ecology and the Environment Aldo Leopold
531 Graduate Research Award.
532 **Competing interests:** The author(s) declare none

533 **Data availability:** Data will be made available upon reasonable request

534 **References**

535 Alignier A, Carof M, Aviron S (2024) Assessing cropping system multifunctionality: An
536 analysis of trade-offs and synergies in French cereal fields. Agricultural Systems
537 221:104100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104100

538 Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK (2013) Coding In-depth Semistructured
539 Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement.
540 Sociological Methods & Research 42:294–320.
541 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

542 Crews TE, Blesh J, Culman SW, et al (2016) Going where no grains have gone before: From
543 early to mid-succession. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 223:223–238.
544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.012

545 Cureton C, Peters TE, Skelly S, et al (2023) Towards a practical theory for commercializing
546 novel continuous living cover crops: a conceptual review through the lens of Kernza
547 perennial grain, 2019–2022. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7:

548 Dardonville M, Legrand B, Clivot H, et al (2022) Assessment of ecosystem services and
549 natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems. Ecosystem Services 54:101415.
550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101415

551 DeHaan LR, Anderson JA, Bajgain P, et al (2023) Discussion: Prioritize perennial grain
552 development for sustainable food production and environmental benefits. Science of
553 The Total Environment 895:164975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164975
554 Dessart FJ, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R (2019) Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46:417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019

557 Duchene O, Celette F, Ryan MR, et al (2019a) Integrating multipurpose perennial grains crops in Western European farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 284:106591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106591

560 Duchene O, Celette F, Ryan MR, et al (2019b) Integrating multipurpose perennial grains crops in Western European farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 284:106591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106591

563 Fischer K, Jakobsen J, Westengen OT (2022) The political ecology of crops: From seed to state and capital. Geoforum 130:92-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.12.011

566 Förster A, David C, Dumont B, et al (2023) Earthworm populations and diversity under annual and perennial wheat in a North to South gradient in Western Europe. European Journal of Soil Biology 119:103561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2023.103561

569 Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy 33:897-920

572 Ginot C, Bathellier C, David C, et al (2024) Introducing intermediate wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop into farming systems: insights into the decision-making process of pioneer farmers. Agron Sustain Dev 44:58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00993-1

576 Groupe Polanyi (2008) La multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture: Une dialectique entre marché et identité., Quae édition. Quae, Versailles
578 Hazareesingh S, Maat H (2016) Introduction. In: Local Subversions of Colonial Cultures:

579 Commodities and Anti-Commodities in Global History, Palgrave Macmillan.

580 Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire

581 Isgren E, Andersson E, Carton W (2020) New perennial grains in African smallholder

582 agriculture from a farming systems perspective. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 40:6.

583 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-0609-8

584 Jungers J, Runck B, Ewing PM, et al (2023) Adapting perennial grain and oilseed crops for

585 climate resiliency. Crop Science 63:1701–1721. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20972

586 Jungers JM, DeHaan LH, Mulla DJ, et al (2019) Reduced nitrate leaching in a perennial grain

587 crop compared to maize in the Upper Midwest, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

588 Environment 272:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.11.007

589 Kundert J, Rakkar M, Gutknecht J, Jungers J (2024) Mechanical termination of a perennial

590 grain crop minimally impacts soil structure, carbon and carbon dioxide emissions.

591 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment 3:

592 https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.12094

593 Lanker M, Bell M, Picasso VD (2020) Farmer perspectives and experiences introducing the

594 novel perennial grain Kernza intermediate wheatgrass in the US Midwest. Renew

595 Agric Food Syst 35:653–662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000310

596 Marquardt K, Vico G, Glynn C, et al (2016) Farmer perspectives on introducing perennial

597 cereal in Swedish farming systems: a sustainability analysis of plant traits, farm

598 management, and ecological implications. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

599 40:432–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1141146

600 McKenna TP, Crews TE, Kemp L, Sikes BA (2020) Community structure of soil fungi in a

601 novel perennial crop monoculture, annual agriculture, and native prairie
602 reconstruction. PLOS ONE 15:e0228202.

603 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228202

604 Meynard J-M, Charrier F, Fares M, et al (2018) Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop

605 diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev 38:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-

606 018-0535-1

607 Pimentel D, Cerasale D, Stanley RC, et al (2012) Annual vs. perennial grain production.

608 Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 161:1-9.

609 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.025

610 Primdahl J, Kristensen LS, Busck AG (2013) The Farmer and Landscape Management:

611 Different Roles, Different Policy Approaches. Geography Compass 7:300-314.

612 https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12040

613 Rakkar M, Jungers JM, Sheaffer C, et al (2023) Soil health improvements from using a novel

614 perennial grain during the transition to organic production. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

615 Environment 341:108164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108164

616 Renting H, Rossing WAH, Groot JCJ, et al (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A

617 review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional

618 framework. Journal of Environmental Management 90:S112-S123.

619 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014

620 Romanova O, Gold MA, Hall DM, Hendrickson MK (2022) Perspectives of Agroforestry

621 Practitioners on Agroforestry Adoption: Case Study of Selected SARE Participants.

622 Rural Sociology 87:1401-1431. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12463

623 Ryan MR, Crews TE, Culman SW, et al (2018) Managing for Multifunctionality in Perennial

624 Grain Crops. BioScience 68:294-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy014

625 Shepard M (2013) Restoration Agriculture: Real-World Permaculture for Farmers-. Acres

626 U.S.A., Inc., Austin, Texas
627 Tautges N, Detjens A, Jungers, Jacob (2023) Kernza® Grower Guide

628 The Land Institute (2025) 2024 *annual Kernza® supply report: Insights into U.S. Kernza®*

629 *planting, harvest, and management data*. https://kernza.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-

630 Annual-Kernza%C2%AE-Supply-Report.pdf

631 Wayman S, Debray V, Parry S, et al (2019) Perspectives on Perennial Grain Crop Production

632 among Organic and Conventional Farmers in France and the United States.

633 Agriculture 9:244. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9110244

634 Wilson GA (2008) From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: Conceptualising farm-level

635 multifunctional transitional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies 24:367–383.

636 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010

637
638 Captions

639 Table 1. Descriptive coding grid used for the first step of analysis

640

641 Table 2. Analytic coding grid for the functions of agriculture and the rationale about the agri-

642 food sector as raised by farmers.

643

644 Table 3. Summary of Farm Locations, Management Practices, Farming Systems, Intermediate

645 Wheatgrass (IWG) Establishment Dates, Field Sizes, Stand Ages at Data Collection, and

646 Dual-Use Status Reported by Interviewees

647

648 Table 4. Description of agronomic management practices per interviewee for topics such as

649 land allocation, stand establishment, weed management fertilization, forage management,

650 grain harvest, grain storage and cleaning, and stand termination.

651

652 Figure 1. Distribution of interviewees. One participant was in Kansas, one in Iowa, three in

653 Minnesota, and ten in Wisconsin, USA. See Table 1 for corresponding information about each

654 farm and farmer.

655

656 Figure 2. Place of IWG in a farming system, embedded in a socio-technical system and in

657 relation to farmers' rationale for agriculture. By being present on the farm and fulfilling

658 multiple purposes, IWG is expected to move the cursor towards greater multifunctionality.

659 However, the socio-technical and farming systems, as well as cropping practices can
660 determine the extent to which crop purposes are produced and multifunctionality of

661 agriculture is achieved.