"Suffering" is a nonsense word. It can't be measured or detected. There is no scientific theory of what it is, or even how we might go about somehow detecting its presence or absence some day. I mean, the word might have some use in poetry, but otherwise it could be stricken from vocabulary without any real loss.

> This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans

There is a fundamental difference. Humans are humans, and non-humans aren't. And being the practical organism I am, I (along with most others for the last few ten thousand years) have decided that it is socially and politically convenient for me to treat other humans well. When I do, you all agree to chase down my murderer, for instance, to the best of your ability and punish him. That deterrence effect is valuable to me. You agree that there are some basic inviolable rights. Etc. The reciprocity required on my part is a bargain for the value I get in exchange.

Non-humans are incapable of the reciprocity. I get nothing for extending any of these courtesies to a chicken. I (and most others) have therefor not extended these courtesies to chickens. Or cows, or hogs. Or, for that matter, any other non-human species. You don't get to re-negotiate these things unilaterally either, it would require the some super-majority of humanity, of human cultures, to extend this to a non-human species. Maybe you should start a petition.

Do you even know why you believe the absurd things you do? Can you trace the meme back to whom and whence it originated from? Do you even know why you accept it as true? Do you understand its implications, really?

> show signs of consciousness,

What's that, exactly? There is no such thing as consciousness. Not even in humans. It's the secular word for "soul", I think. At least "soul" is more honest. There is no such thing though, no matter what word you use.

> The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans

Funny. You just spent your entire comment doing that. You told me they weren't different when it came to consciousness, emotions, or suffering. You claimed "numerous scientific studies" that they have complex behaviors similar to humans, that they experience pain and stress as we do. I mean, it's like just 1 or 2 sentences above this claim. Did you lose track?

> but about acknowledging these

I can't acknowledge that which isn't real. If at some point in the future you manage to prove empirically that these invisible, imaginary qualities are real, I can acknowledge them then... but I won't hold my breath. Or pretend with you in the meantime.

> It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion

Nothing you've said indicates you are familiar with logic.

Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles. Their pain has no moral weight whatsoever. You should rejoice that you live in a universe where it actually ruins the flavor.