opinion: C. D. BURRUS and Donald L. Troutman, d/b/a Burrus and Troutman Livestock and Hauling, Petitioners, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and the Packers and Stockyards Administration, Respondents.
  No. 77-1883.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted May 18, 1978.
  Decided May 31, 1978.
  Richard A. Koehler, Livestock Marketing Assn., Kansas City, Mo., for petitioners.
  Barbara Allen Babcock, Morton Hollander and Robert Kaplan (argued), Civil Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and James Michael Kelly, Raymond W. Fullerton and John E. Ford, U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondents.
  Before HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and BECKER, Senior District Judge.
  The Honorable William H. Becker, Senior District Judge, Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
  PER CURIAM.
  C. D. Burrus and Donald L. Troutman seek review of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary held that the petitioners violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, 7 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., and the regulations issued pursuant to the Act by (1) operating a livestock scale which failed to comply with requirements because it was improperly balanced; (2) selling livestock to packers at false and incorrect weights obtained by adding an arbitrary number of pounds to the purchase weights of livestock; (3) issuing and maintaining scale tickets and invoices which showed false and incorrect weights; and (4) collecting money from packers on the basis of the false records.
  We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the order of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, that no error of law appears and that an opinion would be without precedential value. For these reasons, we deny the petition for review and enforce the order of the Secretary of Agriculture without opinion. See Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "agriculture". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: single family farm commercial farm, agri-business farm - other  unclear