of poultry or livestock products in an unmanufac-tured state.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(21). In this case, the threshold question in determining whether the Debtors qualify for Chapter 12 relief is whether they are “engaged in a farming operation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(18). For the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 101(21), “[ajlthough certain modes of farming are specified, the definition of ‘farming operation’ is not limited to those operations specifically enumerated.” In re Borg, 4 Mont.B.R. 178, 180 (Bankr.Mont.1987). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also held the examples of farming operations listed under § 101(21) “are not exclusive ... of other activities that might constitute ‘farming operations.’” Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. McNeal (In re McNeal), 848 F.2d 170 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); In re Dakota Lay’d Eggs, 57 B.R. 648, 653
holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding a jury question existed as to whether a patient consented to an operation and whether the operation received was substantially similar to the operation to which the patient consented so as to be within the scope of the consent holding that apartment complex did not violate residential use restriction but noting that in many respects and for certain purposes ownership and operation of an apartment house is a business holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes holding that a chicken coop cleaning and fertilizer business did not constitute a farming operation