When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering?
['https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21694', 'https://buddhism.stackexchange.com', 'https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/-1/']
Its very clear that dogs are conscious and feel the same pain as humans do and the suffering is the same suffering 

If by self aware you mean mindful- than most people arent mindful 99.9999% of the time --- many many monks if good ones are not mindful most of the time

About bacteria i cant say much
More primitive life forms, such as worms or fish, have a nervous system, therefore their nervous system experiences physical pain. Dogs are probably more complex and have emotions such as lust, love, *emotional* attachment; that makes them experience *emotional* sorrow & unhappiness. 

However. as we can directly experience, homo sapiens (people) have the *egoistic* attachment (*upadana*) of self-identity (*sakkaya ditthi*), which is born from thought conception. This *upadana* of *sakkaya ditthi* is the '*suffering*' ('*dukkha*') Buddhism seeks to eliminate. 

I think it is a fair assumption worms & fish cannot create the *upadana* of *sakkaya ditthi*; and probably also dogs. 

> 
> *Bhikkhu, ‘**I am**’ **is a conceiving**; ‘**I am** this’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall
>  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall be formless’ is a
>  conceiving; ‘**I** shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall be
>  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘**I** shall be
>  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. **Conceiving is
>  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart**. By overcoming
>  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. MN 140*
> 
> 
>