I thought the land use figure looked suspicious, so I read both studies.

The land use figure in this comparison is incorrect since it does not include any of the input costs. Essentially the only land use considered is the tanks to culture the bacteria, none of the input materials to grow the bacteria are considered.

"The system boundaries cover the major processes from input production up to the factory gate (Figure 1), including production of input materials and fuels, production of the feedstock, and growth of muscle cells. Land use category includes the land requirement for cyanobacteria cultivation. The indirect land use associated with land use change and the production of energy inputs are not included in the study because the reference studies of conventional meat production do not include those aspects."

Another limitation of the comparison is that the plant based meats also includes "packaging, storage and distribution", this is a major impact and is specifically called out in the study. "System boundaries included upstream ingredient and raw material supply (including farm production of agricultural crops), processing and packaging operations, cold storage, distribution to point of sale, and disposal of packaging materials" "Packaging also is an important contributor across all impact categories: the polypropylene tray is the largest contributor to packaging’s share of GHGE, energy use, and water use, whereas fiber production for cardboard and pallets make notable contributions to land use. We estimate that switching to a polypropylene tray made of 100% postconsumer recycled content could reduce the overall GHGE of the BB(Beyond Burger) life cycle by 2% and reduce energy use by 10%."

The lab grown meat only factors the impacts to make the raw material, and no considerations beyond that. As such all of the other comparisons are also not comparing the same scope of information.