In order for practices other than actual farming operations to
constitute ``agriculture'' within the meaning of section 3(f) of the
Act, it is not enough that they be performed by a farmer or on a farm in
connection with the farming operations conducted by such farmer or on
such farm, as explained in Secs. 780.129 through 780.143. They must also
be performed ``as an incident to or in conjunction with'' these farming
operations. The line between practices that are and those that are not
performed ``as an incident to or in conjunction with'' such farming
operations is not susceptible of precise definition. Generally, a
practice performed in connection with farming operations is within the
statutory language only if it constitutes an established part of
agriculture, is subordinate to the farming operations involved, and does
not amount to an independent business. Industrial operations (Holtville
Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398) and processes that are more akin
to manufacturing than to agriculture (Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254;
Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473) are not included. This is also true when
on-the-farm practices are performed for a farmer. As to when practices
may be regarded as performed for a farmer, see Sec. 780.143.
