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 "federal government (including DC)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
KNUDSEN BROTHERS DAIRY, INC., Appellee, v. Orville L. FREEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America, Appellant.
No. 361, Docket 26698.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 4, 1961.
Decided June 13, 1962.
Neil Brooks, Assistant General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. (William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Alan S. Rosenthal, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Joseph A. Walsh, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
John D. Fassett, New Haven, Conn. (Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Willis F. Daniels, Harrisburg, Pa., John D. Fassett, New Haven, Conn., on the brief, for Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. and Suncrest Farms, Inc., amici curiae.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Sydney Berde, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief, for the State of Minnesota, amicus curiae.
Frederick U. Conard, Jr., Hartford, Conn., Reuben Hall, Boston, Mass., Frederic P. Lee, Washington, D. C., John A. Cardon, Washington, D. C., Frank B. Lent, William J. Moore, New York City, Richard Wiles, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief, for New England Milk Producers’ Association, Dairymen’s League Cooperative Association, Inc., Connecticut Milk Producers’ Association, Metropolitan Cooperative Milk Producers’ Bargaining Agency, Inc., Mutual Federation of Independent Cooperatives, Inc., amici curiae.
Daniel C. Williams, Syracuse, New York, on the brief, for Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.,, amicus curiae.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and STEEL, District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
We have withheld decision of this case-since argument of the appeal on May 4, 1961 because the Supreme Court on June 19, 1961 granted certiorari in Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.2d 726 (3 Cir. 1961). Since the Supreme Court’s decision in-the Lehigh Valley case on June 4, 1962 disposes of the government’s contentions, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
STEEL, D. J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?

Choices:
cabinet level department
courts or legislative
agency whose first word is "federal"
other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
Distric of Columbia
other, not listed, not able to classify

Answer: 0