Transportation of farm products from the fields where they are grown
or from the farm to other places may be within the ``secondary'' meaning
of agriculture, regardless of whether the transportation is included as
``delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to
market'': Provided only, That it is performed by a farmer or on a farm
as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations of that
farmer or that farm. Of course, any transportation operations which are
part of, and not subsequent to, the ``primary'' farming operations are
also within section 3(f). These principles have been recognized by the
courts in the following cases, among others: Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S.
254; NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714; Bowie v. Gonzales, 117 F. 2d
11; Calaf v. Gonzales, 127 F. 8d 934; Vives v. Serralles, 145 F. 2d 552;
Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398. If not performed by the
farmer, transportation beyond the limits of the farm is not within
section 3(f), even when performed by a purchaser of the unharvested
commodities who has harvested the crop. The scope of section 3(f)
includes the harvesting employees but does not extend to the employees
transporting the commodities off the farm (Chapman v. Durkin, 214 F. 2d
360, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 897; Fort Mason Fruit Co. v. Durkin, 214 F.
2d 363, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 897).
