``Practices * * * performed by a farmer'' must be performed as an
incident to or in conjunction with ``such farming operations'' in order
to constitute ``agriculture'' within the secondary meaning of the term.
Practices performed by a farmer in connection with his nonfarming
operations do not satisfy this requirement (see Calaf v. Gonzalez, 127
F. 2d 934; Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473). Furthermore, practices
performed by a farmer can meet the above requirement only in the event
that they are performed in connection with the farming operations of the
same farmer who performs the practices. Thus, the requirement is not met
with respect to employees engaged in any practices performed by their
employer in connection with farming operations that are not his own (see
Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755; Mitchell v. Hunt, 263 F.
2d 913; NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714; Mitchell v. Huntsville
Nurseries, 267 F. 2d 286; Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11). The
processing by a farmer of commodities of other farmers, if incident to
or in conjunction with farming operations, is incidental to or in
conjunction with the farming operations of the other farmers and not
incidental to or in conjunction with the farming operations of the
farmer doing the processing (Mitchell v. Huntsville Nurseries, supra;
Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, supra; Bowie v. Gonzalez, supra).
