---
kind: "range"
citation: "29 C.F.R. §§ 780.129–780.143"
title: "29"
from: "780.129"
to: "780.143"
count: 15
url: "https://uscodex.org/cfr/29/780.129..780.143"
---

# §780.129. Required relationship of practices to farming operations.


To come within this secondary meaning, a practice must be performed either by a farmer or on a farm. It must also be performed either in connection with the farmer's own farming operations or in connection with farming operations conducted on the farm where the practice is performed. In addition, the practice must be performed “as an incident to or in conjunction with” the farming operations. No matter how closely related it may be to farming operations, a practice performed neither by a farmer nor on a farm is not within the scope of the “secondary” meaning of “agriculture.” Thus, employees employed by commission brokers in the typical activities conducted at their establishments, warehouse employees at the typical tobacco warehouses, shop employees of an employer engaged in the business of servicing machinery and equipment for farmers, plant employees of a company dealing in eggs or poultry produced by others, employees of an irrigation company engaged in the general distribution of water to farmers, and other employees similarly situated do not generally come within the secondary meaning of “agriculture.” The inclusion of industrial operations is not within the intent of the definition in [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f), nor are processes that are more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture (see Bowie v. Gonzales, 117 F. 2d 11; Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button Co., 113 F. 2d 52; Holtville Alfalfa Mills v. Wyatt, 230 F. 2d 398; Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254; Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473).


# §780.130. Performance “by a farmer” generally.


Among other things, a practice must be performed by a farmer or on a farm in order to come within the secondary portion of the definition of “agriculture.” No precise lines can be drawn which will serve to delimit the term “farmer” in all cases. Essentially, however, the term is an occupational title and the employer must be engaged in activities of a type and to the extent that the person ordinarily regarded as a “farmer” is engaged in order to qualify for the title. If this test is met, it is immaterial for what purpose he engages in farming or whether farming is his sole occupation. Thus, an employer's status as a “farmer” is not altered by the fact that his only purpose is to obtain products useful to him in a non-farming enterprise which he conducts. For example, an employer engaged in raising nursery stock is a “farmer” for purposes of [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) even though his purpose is to supply goods for a separate establishment where he engages in the retail distribution of nursery products. The term “farmer” as used in [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) is not confined to individual persons. Thus an association, a partnership, or a corporation which engages in actual farming operations may be a “farmer” (see Mitchell v. Budd, 350 U.S. 473). This is so even where it operates “what might be called the agricultural analogue of the modern industrial assembly line” (Maneja v. Waialua, 349 U.S. 254).


# §780.131. Operations which constitute one a “farmer.”


Generally, an employer must undertake farming operations of such scope and significance as to constitute a distinct activity, for the purpose of yielding a farm product, in order to be regarded as a “farmer.” It does not necessarily follow, however, that any employer is a “farmer” simply because he engages in some actual farming operations of the type specified in [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f). Thus, one who merely harvests a crop of agricultural commodities is not a “farmer” although his employees who actually do the harvesting are employed in “agriculture” in those weeks when exclusively so engaged. As a general rule, a farmer performs his farming operations on land owned, leased, or controlled by him and devoted to his own use. The mere fact, therefore, that an employer harvests a growing crop, even under a partnership agreement pursuant to which he provides credit, advisory or other services, is not generally considered to be sufficient to qualify the employer so engaged as a “farmer.” Such an employer would stand, in packing or handling the product, in the same relationship to the produce as if it were from the fields or groves of an independent grower. One who engaged merely in practices which are incidental to farming is not a “farmer.” For example, a company which merely prepares for market, sells, and ships flowers and plants grown and cultivated on farms by affiliated corporations is not a “farmer.” The fact that one has suspended actual farming operations during a period in which he performs only practices incidental to his part or prospective farming operations does not, however, preclude him from qualifying as a “farmer.” One otherwise qualified as a farmer does not lose his status as such because he performs farming operations on land which he does not own or control, as in the case of a cattleman using public lands for grazing.


# §780.132. Operations must be performed “by” a farmer.


“Farmer” includes the employees of a farmer. It does not include an employer merely because he employs a farmer or appoints a farmer as his agent to do the actual work. Thus, the stripping of tobacco, i.e., removing leaves from the stalk, by the employees of an independent warehouse is not a practice performed “by a farmer” even though the warehouse acts as agent for the tobacco farmer or employs the farmer in the stripping operations. One who merely performs services or supplies materials for farmers in return for compensation in money or farm products is not a “farmer.” Thus, a person who provides credit and management services to farmers cannot qualify as a “farmer” on that account. Neither can a repairman who repairs and services farm machinery qualify as a “farmer” on that basis. Where crops are grown under contract with a person who provides a market, contributes counsel and advice, make advances and otherwise assists the grower who actually produces the crop, it is the grower and not the person with whom he contracts who is the farmer with respect to that crop (Mitchell v. Huntsville Nurseries, 267 F. 2d 286).


# §780.133. Farmers' cooperative as a “farmer.”

- (a) The phrase “by a farmer” covers practices performed either by the farmer himself or by the farmer through his employees. Employees of a farmers' cooperative association, however, are employed not by the individual farmers who compose its membership or who are its stockholders, but by the cooperative association itself. Cooperative associations whether in the corporate form or not, are distinct, separate entities from the farmers who own or compose them. The work performed by a farmers' cooperative association is not work performed “by a farmer” but for farmers. Therefore, employees of a farmers' cooperative association are not generally engaged in any practices performed “by a farmer” within the meaning of [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) (Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755; Goldberg v. Crowley Ridge Ass'n., 295 F. 2d 7; McComb v. Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op Ass'n., 80 F. Supp. 953, 181 F. 2d 697). The legislative history of the Act supports this interpretation. Statutes usually cite farmers' cooperative associations in express terms if it is intended that they be included. The omission of express language from the Fair Labor Standards Act is significant since many unsuccessful attempts were made on the floor of Congress to secure special treatment for such cooperatives.
- (b) It is possible that some farmers' cooperative associations may themselves engage in actual farming operations to an extent and under circumstances sufficient to qualify as a “farmer.” In such case, any of their employees who perform practices as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations are employed in “agriculture.”

# §780.134. Performance “on a farm” generally.


If a practice is not performed by a farmer, it must, among other things, be performed “on a farm” to come within the secondary meaning of “agriculture” in [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f). Any practice which cannot be performed on a farm, such as “delivery to market,” is necessarily excluded, therefore, when performed by someone other than a farmer (see Farmers Reservoir Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755; 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). Thus, employees of an alfalfa dehydrator engaged in hauling chopped or unchopped alfalfa away from the farms to the dehydrating plant are not employed in a practice performed “on a farm.”


# §780.135. Meaning of “farm.”


A “farm” is a tract of land devoted to the actual farming activities included in the first part of [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f). Thus, the gathering of wild plants in the woods for transplantation in a nursery is not an operation performed “on a farm.” (For a further discussion, see [§ 780.207](/cfr/29/780.207.md).) The total area of a tract operated as a unit for farming purposes is included in the “farm,” irrespective of the fact that some of this area may not be utilized for actual farming operations (see NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714; In re Princeville Canning Co., 14 WH Cases 641 and 762). It is immaterial whether a farm is situated in the city or in the country. However, a place in a city where no primary farming operations are performed is not a farm even if operated by a farmer (Mitchell v. Huntsville Nurseries, 267 F. 2d 286).


# §780.136. Employment in practices on a farm.


Employees engaged in building terraces or threshing wheat and other grain, employees engaged in the erection of silos and granaries, employees engaged in digging wells or building dams for farm ponds, employees engaged in inspecting and culling flocks of poultry, and pilots and flagmen engaged in the aerial dusting and spraying of crops are examples of the types of employees of independent contractors who may be considered employed in practices performed “on a farm.” Whether such employees are engaged in “agriculture” depends, of course, on whether the practices are performed as an incident to or in conjunction with the farming operations on the particular farm, as discussed in [§§ 780.141 through 780.147](/cfr/29/780.141..780.147.md); that is, whether they are carried on as a part of the agricultural function or as a separately organized productive activity ([§§ 780.104 through 780.144](/cfr/29/780.104..780.144.md)). Even though an employee may work on several farms during a workweek, he is regarded as employed “on a farm” for the entire workweek if his work on each farm pertains solely to farming operations on that farm. The fact that a minor and incidental part of the work of such an employee occurs off the farm will not affect this conclusion. Thus, an employee may spend a small amount of time within the workweek in transporting necessary equipment for work to be done on farms. Field employees of a canner or processor of farm products who work on farms during the planting and growing season where they supervise the planting operations and consult with the grower on problems of cultivation are employed in practices performed “on a farm” so long as such work is done entirely on farms save for an incidental amount of reporting to their employer's plant. Other employees of the above employers employed away from the farm would not come within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f). For example, airport employees such as mechanics, loaders, and office workers employed by a crop dusting firm would not be agriculture employees (Wirtz v. Boyls dba Boyls Dusting and Spraying Service 230 F. Supp. 246, aff'd per curiam 352 F. 2d 63; Tobin v. Wenatchee Air Service, 10 WH Cases 680, 21 CCH Lab Cas. Paragraph 67,019 (E.D. Wash.)).


# §780.137. Practices must be performed in connection with farmer's own farming.


“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).


# §780.138. Application of the general principles.


Some examples will serve to illustrate the above principles. Employees of a fruit grower who dry or pack fruit not grown by their employer are not within section (f). This is also true of storage operations conducted by a farmer in connection with products grown by someone other than the farmer. Employees of a grower-operator of a sugarcane mill who transport cane from fields to the mill are not within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f), where such cane is grown by independent farmers on their land as well as by the mill operator (Bowie v. Gonzalez, 117 F. 2d 11). Employees of a tobacco grower who strip tobacco (i.e., remove the leaves from the stalk) are not agricultural employees when performing this operation on tobacco not grown by their employer. On the other hand, where a farmer rents some space in a warehouse or packinghouse located off the farm and the farmer's own employees there engage in handling or packing only his own products for market, such operations by the farmers are within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) if performed as an incident to or in conjunction with his farming operations. Such arrangements are distinguished from those where the employees are not actually employed by the farmer. The fact that a packing shed is conducted by a family partnership, packing products exclusively grown on lands owned and operated by individuals constituting the partnership, does not alter the status of the packing activity. Thus, if in a particular case an individual farmer is engaged in agriculture, a family partnership which performs the same operations would also be engaged in agriculture. (Dofflemeyer v. NLRB, 206 F. 2d 813.) However, an incorporated association of farmers that does not itself engage in farming operations is not engaged in agriculture though it processes at its packing shed produce grown exclusively by the farmer members of the association. (Goldberg v. Crowley Ridge and Fruit Growers Association, 295 F. 2d 7 (C.A. 8).)


# §780.139. Pea vining.


Vining employees of a pea vinery located on a farm, who vine only the peas grown on that particular farm, are engaged in agriculture. If they also vine peas grown on other farms, such operations could not be within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) unless the farmer-employer owns or operates the other farms and vines his own peas exclusively. However, the work of vining station employees in weeks in which the stations vine only peas grown by a canner on farms owned or leased by him is considered part of the canning operations. As such, the cannery operations, including the vining operations, are within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) only if the canners can crops which he grows himself and if the canning operations are subordinate to the farming operations.


# §780.140. Place of performing the practice as a factor.


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).


# §780.141. Practices must relate to farming operations on the particular farm.


“Practices * * * performed * * * on a farm” 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. No practice performed with respect to farm commodities is within the language under discussion by reason of its performance on a farm unless all of such commodities are the products of that farm. Thus, the performance on a farm of any practice, such as packing or storing, which may be incidental to farming operations cannot constitute a basis for considering the employees engaged in agriculture if the practice is performed upon any commodities that have been produced elsewhere than on such farm (see Mitchell v. Hunt, 263 F. 2d 913). The construction by an independent contractor of granary on a farm is not connected with “such” farming operations if the farmer for whom it is built intends to use the structure for storing grain produced on other farms. Nor is the requirement met with respect to employees engaged in any other practices performed on a farm, but not by a farmer, in connection with farming operations that are not conducted on that particular farm. The fact that such a practice pertains to farming operations generally or to those performed on a number of farms, rather than to those performed on the same farm only, is sufficient to take it outside the scope of the statutory language. Area soil surveys and genetics research activities, results of which are made available to a number of farmers, are typical of the practices to which this principle applies and which are not within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f) under this provision.


# §780.142. Practices on a farm not related to farming operations.


Practices performed on a farm in connection with nonfarming operations performed on or off such farm do not meet the requirement stated in [§ 780.141](/cfr/29/780.141.md). For example, if a farmer operates a gravel pit on his farm, none of the practices performed in connection with the operation of such gravel pit would be within [section 3(f)](/cfr/29/3.md?p=f). Whether or not some practices are performed in connection with farming operations conducted on the farm where they are performed must be determined with reference to the purpose of the farmer for whom the practice is performed. Thus, land clearing operations may or may not be connected with such farming operations depending on whether or not the farmer intends to devote the cleared land to farm use.


# §780.143. Practices on a farm not performed for the farmer.


The fact that a practice performed on a farm is not performed by or for the farmer is a strong indication that it is not performed in connection with the farming operations there conducted. Thus, where such an employer other than the farmer performs certain work on a farm solely for himself in furtherance of his own enterprise, the practice cannot ordinarily be regarded as performed in connection with farming operations conducted on the farm. For example, it is clear that the work of employees of a utility company in trimming and cutting trees for power and communications lines is part of a nonfarming enterprise outside the scope of agriculture. When a packer of vegetables or dehydrator of alfalfa buys the standing crop from the farmer, harvests it with his own crew of employees, and transports the harvested crop to his off-the-farm packing or dehydrating plant, the transporting and plant employees, who are not engaged in “primary” agriculture as are the harvesting employees (see NLRB v. Olaa Sugar Co., 242 F. 2d 714), are clearly not agricultural employees. Such an employer cannot automatically become an agricultural employer by merely transferring the plant operations to the farm so as to meet the “on a farm” requirement. His employees will continue outside the scope of agriculture if the packing or dehydrating is not in reality done for the farmer. The question of for whom the practices are performed is one of fact. In determining the question, however, the fact that prior to the performance of the packing or dehydrating operations, the farmer has relinquished title and divested himself of further responsibility with respect to the product, is highly significant.