The delayed 2023 Farm Bill was extended to September 30^th based on the reality that Democratic and Republican members of the respective House and Senate Agricultural Committees could not agree on critical issues including SNAP payment and eligibility and the magnitude of farm commodity support payments.  It is unlikely that the 118^th Congress will frame a suitable Farm Bill and the responsibility will be passed to the 119^th Congress that will take office on January 3^rd.  Accordingly, a continuing resolution will be required to maintain funding for federal programs.

Agricultural associations are naturally lobbying for their constituencies.  The National Pork Producers Council, responsible for scuttling the “Egg Bill” in 2013 is strongly advocating for inclusion of a version of the EATS Act in the delayed 2013 Farm Bill that would effectively eliminate restrictive state laws and regulations including California Proposition #12 and its clones.  Some pork producers are obviously concerned over the need to replace gestation crates with group housing of sows.  The industry has effectively made considerable progress in conversion based on the demands of customers.  A segment of the pork industry fails to recognize that the train has long since left the station and that inexorably gestation crates and those using them will be phased out based on customer and consumer preferences. Perpetuation of the status quo cannot be propped up by inappropriate legislation. 

During this period of indecision over enactment of a bipartisan Farm Bill, pork producers and other segments of livestock agriculture are at risk. This is based on restraints on funding market access and foreign market development, upgrading protection from foreign animal diseases and the application of resources that will enhance productivity and potentially reduce cost.  The deadline for a continuing resolution is December 20^th when all federal funding ceases.

In contrast to the pork producers, the egg industry accepted the need to satisfy the market for eggs produced in other than conventional cages through investment in new facilities. Subsequent price differentiation has confirmed the financial benefit from conversion to alternative systems that now represents forty percent of housing capacity.  Responsible pork producers and packers have adopted a similar approach. This leaves a voluble minority disinclined to invest in improved housing for sows. They are attempting to influence legislation to buttress perpetuation of an inhumane housing system. They may regret their intransigence as markets for their products will shrink.