So long as the farming operations to which a farmer's practice
pertains are performed by him in his capacity as a farmer, the status of
the practice is not necessarily altered by the fact that the farming
operations take place on more than one farm or by the fact that some of
the operations are performed off his farm (NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242
F. 2d 714). Thus, where the practice is performed with respect to
products of farming operations, the controlling consideration is whether
the products were produced by the farming operations of the farmer who
performs the practice rather than at what place or on whose land he
produced them. Ordinarily, a practice performed by a farmer in
connection with farming operations conducted on land which he owns or
leases will be considered as performed in connection with the farming
operations of such farmer in the absence of facts indicating that the
farming operations are actually those of someone else. Conversely, a
contrary conclusion will ordinarily be justified if such farmer is not
the owner or a bona fide lessee of such land during the period when the
farming operations take place. The question of whose farming operations
are actually being conducted in cases where they are performed pursuant
to an agreement or arrangement, not amounting to a bona fide lease,
between the farmer who performs the practice and the landowner
necessarily involves a careful scrutiny
of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrangement. Where
commodities are grown on the farm of the actual grower under contract
with another, practices performed by the latter on the commodities, off
the farm where they were grown, relate to farming operations of the
grower rather than to any farming operations of the contract purchaser.
This is true even though the contract purports to lease the land to the
latter, give him the title to the crop at all times, and confer on him
the right to supervise the growing operations, where the facts as a
whole show that the contract purchaser provides a farm market, cash
advances, and advice and counsel but does not really perform growing
operations (Mitchell v. Huntsville Nurseries, 267 F. 2d 286).
