A rather confusingly constructed syllogism, but I think I get the point. There is always an element of anthromorphising in arguments for humane treatment of animals, particularly as it related to the measurement of pain or discomfort. A measure that is often based on possible visible signs of pain in the animal interpreted by of course our own human understanding, (or projection, whichever you prefer) of such signs, or more often in our marketised society a general consensus between corporate sympathetic scientists and market driven desire. However the second part of your syllogism is fallacious as you are making a universal inclusive statement as it regards “treatment” across the class of all animals.
-All Humans are animals.
-All Animals are treated inhumanly
-Thus all humans are treated inhumanly.
Aside from the fallacy of including the predicated inhumane in the class of both Animals and Humans, experience tells us this is nonsense as we do have many notions of what humane treatment (at least for us) may be. And as rational beings we are able to apply such treatment to other beings if we should so please, although as you say the criteria for such treatment is often distorted, equally by religious sentiment as by the logic of capital.
But watch out, you are adopting a crude materialist ethics here as it relates to animals (and by degrees the natural world) that in extension would predicate our use of nature purely in economic terms of sustainability, growth, and human health (itself a wide field open to market driven interpretation). In short you are leaning far to much in favour of Darwinian humanistic liberalism.
.
