"Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won."

Animal agriculture's battles with the Humane Society of the United States are far from over. (DTN file photo)

When the Duke of Wellington penned those words in 1815, he was referring to the terrible loss of life his British army suffered in defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. But the sentiment could also apply to political battles, for which victory is never permanent but only a prelude to the next battle, and the next, and the next.

What brings this to mind is the recent "victory" some ag groups won when Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 2, which establishes a 13-member board to define farm animal-care standards. The aim is to head off attempts by animal welfare activists to ban what they deem abusive confinement of animals.

Yet in politics new battles always loom. Nothing in the activists' reaction suggests they were deterred. Wayne Pacelle, the president of the Humane Society of the United States, said his group spent almost nothing on the battle: "We did not view Issue 2 as a poisonous package, but rather an empty one." He said he'd soon be announcing "formal plans" to put an anti-confinement initiative on the Ohio ballot."

Of course, any general tries to put the best face on battle losses. But don't mistake Pacelle's comments for bravado. Ohio voters weren't asked what they thought of keeping veal calves, sows and laying hens in cages or crates. When Proposition 2 asked that of California voters last year, they rejected the practices. Arizona, Florida and Michigan have also made close confinement illegal. Even having affirmed Initiative 2, Ohio voters might still vote yes on a future Proposition 2.

What matters to voters is whether animals are suffering, according to Oklahoma State University ag economists F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson L. Lusk, who discuss their research in an article in Choices, the magazine of the Agriculture & Applied Economic Association (http://bit.ly/…). They interviewed 288 Americans in Chicago, Dallas and Wilmington, N.C., and gave them detailed information, pro and con, on various animal-agriculture practices. Sixty-nine percent agreed that "farm animals should not suffer, but society has no obligation to make sure they are happy and content."

In other words, the public sees no need to pamper animals, but they shouldn't be treated cruelly. California's Proposition 2 voters decided crates and cages are cruel.

Norwood and Lusk predict continued battles in the ballot box, the legislatures and the courts. They argue that the livestock industry is botching its response to the activists' attacks by trotting out two "red herrings" -- attempts to divert attention from the real issue.

Red herring one, say the economists, is that the industry has a monopoly on science. Yes, the industry's standards are based on scientific studies, the economists say, "but there are many studies backing HSUS's claim that cage-free eggs are superior to cage eggs in terms of animal welfare."

Industry spokesman disagree. "When we see reports that activists publish about 'science' we track their footnotes to the studies they cite," Gene Gregory, president of the United Egg Producers, said in an email. "More often than not, the activists have taken one sentence out of a 10-page paper and purport that it is the conclusion, when it is not and often the opposite is true. Is that truly 'science'?"

Red herring two, the economists say, is that the activists' real goal is veganism. Again, the industry disagrees with Norwood & Lusk. Jennifer Greiner, director of science and technology for the National Pork Producers Council, said in an interview that it's important for consumers to know that activists "want each and every one of us to cut the animal protein out of our diet."

Greiner, who is also a pork producer and swine veterinarian, recalled attending a meeting on climate change. "Every speaker said about five times, 'Stop eating meat.' They weave H1N1, gestation stalls and climate change into one. One speaker said, 'Your ham sandwich is killing me.'"

Problem is, even if the industry's right, these arguments may not win battles. Voters hear so many confusing and contradictory claims in the name of science that it's lost some of its power to persuade. If science says cages aren't cruel but voters see photos and film footage that make them squirm, my guess is they're going to believe their own eyes.

As for veganism, the question before the voters won't be whether to declare meat eating illegal; it will be whether the meat and eggs they eat should come from animals raised in cages and crates. Tell a carnivore that activists want to ban meat eating someday, and she'll tell you she'll vote no when that day arrives.

This is not something hog and poultry raisers want to hear, especially when many of them are bleeding red ink. It would be easier to win the battle if the science was conclusive and uncontradicted. It isn't. It would be easier to win the battle if it was over veganism -- and someday it might be. But today it's over cages.

To win the battles immediately ahead, the industry needs better arguments. It can offer halfway measures, like bigger, less-confining cages. The new Ohio board might do that. It can make clear how much more consumers will pay for meat and eggs if cages and crates are outlawed. It can point out that pricier cage-free eggs, free-range chicken and heritage pork are available, so if consumers feel strongly about farm-animal practices they can vote with their wallets.

In the end, the industry must somehow persuade voters animals aren't suffering. Otherwise, Ohio could end up being a melancholy victory -- or perhaps one of the industry's few victories, period.