I would argue that there's no reason to put that kind of moral value on an animal's life.

I don't see any reason to believe that minimizing suffering is equivalent to maximizing good, not in the real world where real things happen. Morality must always be tempered by reality. Sometimes suffering of some form must be endured in order to improve a situation.(Example: Your body will induce fever in an attempt to kill off pathogens)

There seems to be an interesting cultural view that it's morally acceptable to butcher cows, but not dogs or cats.(I do think it's admirable that you've attempted to reconcile this) This has baffled me, but I think I've found an explanation for why this may be the case. My suspicion is that the disgust people feel when pets aren't treated with preference over other animals has more to do with the revealing of the character of the owner than it does with assigning the same moral value to a pet as a human. The idea that a person would make a promise to care for and protect someone or something, then callously disregard its suffering is interpreted as a lack of character. Anyone who would do that to an animal might just do it to a person as well.(This same line of reasoning applies to sex with animals as well, or any action that reflects badly on the character of the person performing the action)

Using this perspective, there isn't a contradiction between treating a pet with care vs slaughtering a cow. The dominant view appears to be that animals are primarily utilitarian, in service to humans to the degree that they provide something in return. Many religions take this stance: Christianity treats nature as a fallen garden. Judaism does this as well.(https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Timothy/5/18) I think Hinduism is an exception, though I'm not that familiar with it. The atheistic view of animal suffering tends to put emphasis on the idea that animals share a similar consciousness to humans, and thus when pain is inflicted on an animal, someone is in there feeling it.(Though there is no way to prove this)

I fall into the atheistic category, but I don't see any reason to give non-human animals the same moral value as humans. Why should I when there is so much to be gained by domesticating them? They suffer in the wild, often more so than in human captivity. They can radically decrease the suffering of humans by preventing hunger. Animal domestication provides jobs. Pets provide happiness. I don't see how a primarily utilitarian view of non-human animals can reflect poorly on our character with these things are taken into consideration.