Animal farming improved human use of land, and indeed crop farming depends a lot on animal byproducts. Or do you prefer unsustainable mineral fertilizers?
Even then what? If the cycle continues where you’re continuously slaughtering and replenishing the animals for food and not letting them live their natural life, the argument that it is better at carbon capture is moot.
Because one (animal agriculture) emits way more carbon than it captures. That's what the article discusses - people trying to make a source of meat-like protein that emits no or negative carbon into the atmosphere.
What land specifically is useful for animals, but not capturing carbon or growing plants? Please give a specific example.