in the middle of a farming area but do not want to experience "the normal residual effects of farming." Id. at 16. But Parker's premise is flawed because Parker By-Products is a separately organized business and not an agricultural use. It is for that very reason that a variance was required. As Parker observes, a variance "to operate a business to produce animal feed" would not have been required if he were drying the mycelium for his own use. Instead, the raw material, the wet mycelium, is imported to the Parker farm, and the finished product, the dried myeceli-um, is then sold to others as an animal feed supplement. As this court has recognized, not all activities with an agricultural nexus are themselves agricultural. See Day v. Ryan, 560 N.E.2d 77, 82-83 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Boyer, 65 Ind.App. 408, 117 N.E. 507,
holding stockyard is a separately organized activity not an agrieultural pursuit holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity holding that automobile racing is not an ultrahazardous activity holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop holding floridas stalking statute which contained the language constitutionally protected activity is not included in the course of conduct definition and constitutional protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests was not impermissibly vague