Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) has been a species of value to humans for much of our history given its broad adaptation and multiple uses. The plant is thought to have originated in Eurasia but has been carried to much of the rest of the world, largely for use as a fiber crop. Declining needs for fiber and competition from other plant fiber sources began to reduce demands for hemp. In turn, concern over psychotropically potent forms of hemp (i.e., marijuana) would lead to the crop's effective prohibition during much of the 20th century. Growing recognition of the many uses for hemp beyond the traditional rope, cordage, and canvas has helped revive interest in the crop, and a majority of US states have reduced restrictions to allow research with the plant. Although hemp now appears on the verge of returning to favor in the United States, there will be much to learn to make it a viable crop competitive with other commodities. Variety and photoperiodicity, site suitability, end use (grain, fiber, or dual purposes) and management, and the interactions of these factors will have a strong impact on crop productivity and suitability for post-harvest use. In addition, the harvest and processing technologies (particularly for fibers and essential oils) that are needed to optimize the plant's value are limited or lacking in the United States. Disease and pest issues are often considered of little concern for hemp, but these likely will grow as the plant's range expands. Opportunities for hemp have increased with the recognition that the crop offers growing and diverse uses for not only its fibers, but for its seed grain and essential oils as well. Several studies indicate that hemp grains are nutritious as feed and food additives and its essential oils are of interest given a number of pharmacologically beneficial properties. Although full of promise given its numerous potential benefits and uses, building markets for these products will be a critical (and likely slow) part of hemp's development into a useful agronomic species for US growers.

Biofuel production from crop residues is widely recognized as an essential component of developing a bioeconomy, but the removal of crop residues still raises many questions about the sustainability of the cropping system. Therefore, this study reviews the sustainability effects of crop residues removal for biofuel production in terms of crop production, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions. Most studies found little evidence that residue management had long‐term impacts on grain yield unless the available water is limited. In years when water was not limiting, corn and wheat removal rates ≥90% produced similar or greater grain yield than no removal in most studies. Conversely, when water was limiting, corn grain yield decreased up to 21% with stover removal ≥90% in some studies. Changes in soil organic fractions and nutrients depended largely on the amount of residue returned, soil depth and texture, slope and tillage. Reductions in organic fractions occurred primarily with complete stover removal, in the top 15–30 cm in fine‐textured soils. Soil erosion, water runoff and leaching of nutrients such as total nitrogen (N) and extractable soil potassium decreased when no more than 30% of crop residues were removed. Stover management effects on soil bulk density varied considerably depending on soil layer, and residue and tillage management, with removal rates of less than 50% helping to maintain the soil aggregate stability. Reductions in CO₂ and N₂O fluxes typically occurred following complete residue removal. The use of wheat straw typically increased CH₄ emissions, and above or equal to 8 Mg/ha wheat straw led to the largest CO₂ and N₂O emissions, regardless of N rates. Before using crop residues for biofuel production, it should therefore always be checked whether neutral to positive sustainability effects can be maintained under the site‐specific conditions.

Current knowledge of yield potential and best agronomic management practices for perennial bioenergy grasses is primarily derived from small‐scale and short‐term studies, yet these studies inform policy at the national scale. In an effort to learn more about how bioenergy grasses perform across multiple locations and years, the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE)/Sun Grant Initiative Regional Feedstock Partnership was initiated in 2008. The objectives of the Feedstock Partnership were to (1) provide a wide range of information for feedstock selection (species choice) and management practice options for a variety of regions and (2) develop national maps of potential feedstock yield for each of the herbaceous species evaluated. The Feedstock Partnership expands our previous understanding of the bioenergy potential of switchgrass, Miscanthus, sorghum, energycane, and prairie mixtures on Conservation Reserve Program land by conducting long‐term, replicated trials of each species at diverse environments in the U.S. Trials were initiated between 2008 and 2010 and completed between 2012 and 2015 depending on species. Field‐scale plots were utilized for switchgrass and Conservation Reserve Program trials to use traditional agricultural machinery. This is important as we know that the smaller scale studies often overestimated yield potential of some of these species. Insufficient vegetative propagules of energycane and Miscanthus prohibited farm‐scale trials of these species. The Feedstock Partnership studies also confirmed that environmental differences across years and across sites had a large impact on biomass production. Nitrogen application had variable effects across feedstocks, but some nitrogen fertilizer generally had a positive effect. National yield potential maps were developed using PRISM‐ELM for each species in the Feedstock Partnership. This manuscript, with the accompanying supplemental data, will be useful in making decisions about feedstock selection as well as agronomic practices across a wide region of the country.

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) has been the principal perennial herbaceous crop investigated for bioenergy production in North America given its high production potential, relatively low input requirements, and potential suitability for use on marginal lands. Few large trials have determined switchgrass yields at field scale on marginal lands, including analysis of production costs. Thus, a field‐scale study was conducted to develop realistic yield and cost estimates for diverse regions of the USA. Objectives included measuring switchgrass response to fertility treatments (0, 56, and 112 kg N ha⁻¹) and generating corresponding estimates of production costs for sites with diverse soil and climatic conditions. Trials occurred in Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Virginia, USA. Cultivars and management practices were site specific, and field‐scale equipment was used for all management practices. Input costs were estimated using final harvest‐year (2015) prices, and equipment operation costs were estimated with the MachData model ($2015). Switchgrass yields generally were below those reported elsewhere, averaging 6.3 Mg ha⁻¹ across sites and treatments. Establishment stand percent ranged from 28% to 76% and was linked to initial year production. No response to N was observed at any site in the first production year. In subsequent seasons, N generally increased yields on well‐drained soils; however, responses to N were nil or negative on less well‐drained soils. Greatest percent increases in response to 112 kg N ha⁻¹ were 57% and 76% on well‐drained South Dakota and Virginia sites, where breakeven prices to justify N applications were over $70 and $63 Mg⁻¹, respectively. For some sites, typically promoted N application rates may be economically unjustified; it remains unknown whether a bioenergy industry can support the breakeven prices estimated for sites where N inputs had positive effects on switchgrass yield.