[bequanna]

> but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them

Other than anecdotal evidence, do you have any source for this?

The cost to remove trees and put that land into production is quite high. Even then, most forested land is poor for growing crops. I would be very surprised to learn that in the US, farmers are removing trees and preparing the land to till on a large scale.

[njarboe]

Most of the land in the US East of the Mississippi was forested, cut down, and turned into farmland. Some marginal lands have returned to forest like in upstate New York and in the Appalachia Mountains, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and other mid-western states are/were the heart of US agricultural production. They are slowly beginning covered by urban and suburban development. I believe that people thought farming was not possible if the land did not already support trees. They were mostly right before irrigation and scientifically bred crops.

[rch]

The article focuses on Argentina as it was a source of low cost biodiesel.

It is still probable that grasslands are a better carbon sink than the same land would be if used to grow soybeans.

Here's a source that describes methods which would be broadly beneficial:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1287318.Holistic_Managem...

[netfire]

This is covered in the article. The forests in question are in Argentina, not the US, and it sounds like demand for Soybeans from China may be causing some of the deforestation (although it is unclear how much is due to that versus US-based demand).

[cantrip]

The article we're discussing is a good source.

Also, Brazil enacted a soy moratorium over ten years ago to combat deforestation.

You're limiting your "surprise" to the US, but that's not what I, or the article we're discussing, are talking about.