Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals · Colorado
Cargill Nutrition Sterling
Sterling, CO · ~21 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.
- D
- Poor Safety Record
- 4.9
- Avg TCR
- 3.9
- Industry avg
- 0
- Fatalities
The verdict
Cargill Nutrition Sterling runs at 125% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals workplace, earning a grade D.
- D
- Poor Safety Record
- 4.9
- avg TCR · per 100 workers
- 3.9
- industry benchmark (BLS)
- 2
- recordable injuries tracked
Grade compares Cargill Nutrition Sterling's OSHA Total Case Rate of 4.9 to the Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals BLS benchmark of 3.9 (125% of benchmark) across 2 years of Form 300A filings (2016–2024). <a href="/methodology">See methodology</a> for reporting-limitation caveats.
Injury rate over time
Cargill Nutrition Sterling's yearly Total Case Rate, against the 3.9 industry benchmark.
Where Cargill Nutrition Sterling falls in its industry
832 Alfalfa prepared as feed for a establishmentsSafer than 29% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.
Narrower to Colorado alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #8 safest of 13 Alfalfa prepared as feed for a employers in Colorado.
Trend analysis for Cargill Nutrition Sterling
Between 2021 and 2022, Cargill Nutrition Sterling's Total Case Rate improved from 5.3 to 4.4 recordable injuries per 100 full-time workers, a 17% decrease across 1 year of OSHA reporting.
The safest year on record was 2022, at a TCR of 4.4, while 2021 saw the highest rate, at 5.3, a spread of 0.9 points between the best and worst reporting years. That's a comparatively narrow spread, suggesting a fairly consistent safety record across the 2 years with a usable rate on file, rather than one outlier year skewing the multi-year average.
Summed across those 2 reporting years, Cargill Nutrition Sterling recorded 2 total injuries and illnesses, with no fatalities reported in any of those years. Readers comparing establishments should weigh the 2-year trend above alongside establishment size, since a larger workforce naturally accumulates more raw incidents even at a lower per-100-worker rate.
Verify This Employer with OSHA
The 2 injuries shown on this page for Cargill Nutrition Sterling are sourced from its own 2 years of mandatory OSHA Form 300A summaries. Cross-check the underlying establishment record directly against the federal source, name, NAICS classification, recordable case totals, and inspection history are all searchable on OSHA's Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data system.
Verify on OSHA Establishment SearchSource: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Establishment-Specific Injury and Illness Data. NAICS 311119 - Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals.
DART Rate, Transparent Calculation (2022)
What is the DART rate formula?
DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred) is computed by OSHA as incidents × 200,000 ÷ hours worked. The 200,000-hour denominator equals roughly 100 full-time workers, which lets establishments of very different sizes be compared directly.
1 DART incidents × 200,000 ÷ 45,300 hours worked = 4.42 DART
Methodology: 29 CFR 1904, OSHA Form 300A recordkeeping
Cross-Validating Context, Establishment vs Industry vs State
| Benchmark | TCR | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Cargill Nutrition Sterling (this establishment) | 4.87 | OSHA ITA Form 300A, 2-year avg |
| Grain Mill Animal Feed industry avg | 3.90 | BLS IIF, NAICS 311119 |
| Colorado state avg (all industries) | 5.41 | OSHA ITA, state-level rollup |
Industry benchmarks: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (IIF) program
Reportable Incident Timeline
Year-by-year reportable incidents (recordable injuries + illnesses + fatalities) submitted by Cargill Nutrition Sterling to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Each row anchors to OSHA's inspection records search where you can pull the underlying inspection case numbers and citations for that establishment-year.
- 2022: 1 reportable incidents · 1 injuries, 0 illnesses, 0 fatalities - OSHA inspection records (case numbers)
- 2021: 1 reportable incidents · 1 injuries, 0 illnesses, 0 fatalities - OSHA inspection records (case numbers)
Source: OSHA Inspection Information System (IMIS) - inspection case-number records
Year-by-Year Safety Data
| Year | TCR | DART | Injuries | Illnesses | Fatalities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
What this grade means for you
Use this grade as a relative read on Cargill Nutrition Sterling's reported OSHA injury record versus its Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals peers, not a verdict on whether any single site is safe today.
- At 125% of the Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals benchmark, Cargill Nutrition Sterling reports more injuries than typical peers, ask specifically how the employer is reducing them. Know your rights
- Judge this record against the wider Alfalfa prepared as feed for animals sector, where injury rates vary widely, before comparing it in isolation. See the industry
- Grades reflect 2016–2024 filings; check the latest establishment record straight from OSHA, or look up a different employer. Look up another
Safety grades reflect employers' self-reported OSHA Form 300A filings from 2016 to 2024 and can lag current conditions. A grade is not a guarantee that any specific workplace is safe or unsafe today. See our methodology and disclaimer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Cargill Nutrition Sterling's safety grade?
How many injuries has Cargill Nutrition Sterling reported?
Similar Employers
Matched by safety record across the industry, by workforce size within Colorado, and by nearby establishments in Sterling - a different peer set than the category browse links below.
Similar TCR (~4.9)
Similar size (~21 workers)
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.