Yeah, but maybe this is an argument for treating the food animals, rather than ridiculousness of standards for science animals.
Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.
A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat
B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life
I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.
Though the productivity differences aren't as large as one would think - protein conversion ratios for smaller animals tend to be 2-3. It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. And it's potentially even better for animals when you consider the quality of protein - e.g. see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362
Half?
Our understanding of nutrition is closer to none than to complete.
The more deeply you research this, the more true my statement will seem.