Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards for transportation) · Texas

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd

Hereford, TX · ~25 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
5.2
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd runs at 116% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards for transportation) workplace, earning a grade C.

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd: 5.2 TCR = 116% of Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards for transportation) BLS 4.5 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd safety composite

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 88% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 51%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

C

64/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.24 per 100 workers

Safer than 51% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 88% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−6.3

2016→2024

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd injury rate improved

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd's TCR fell 6.3 from 6.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 8.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.3 · 2017=8.9 · 2018=7.6 · 2019=2.6 · 2020=5.2 · 2021=5.3 · 2022=2.7 · 2023=8.8 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 112112 · Hereford, TX ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 5.2 · 116% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #34/48
  • PHOTO Fairleigh Feed Yard
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 17 inj
  • SIZE ~25 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Fairleigh Feed Yard (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Texas employers → · Look up another →

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd averages 5.2 TCR (116% of the Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards for transportation) BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd TCR series: 2016=6.3 · 2017=8.9 · 2018=7.6 · 2019=2.6 · 2020=5.2 · 2021=5.3 · 2022=2.7 · 2023=8.8 · 2024=0 · BLS 4.5

Where Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd falls in its industry

165 Beef cattle feedlots (except s establishments

Safer than 51% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #34 safest of 48 Beef cattle feedlots (except s employers in Texas.

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd (25 employees, TCR 5.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 5.4 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 020406080100 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd
Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd (25 employees, TCR 5.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 5.4

Circle Three Feed Yard, Ltd has fewer employees than the Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.4. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 8.8 5.9 3 0 0
2022 2.7 2.7 1 0 0
2021 5.3 5.3 2 0 0
2020 5.2 2.6 2 0 0
2019 2.6 0.0 1 0 0
2018 7.6 7.6 3 0 0
2017 8.9 8.9 3 0 0
2016 6.3 6.3 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

112112 · TX · Hereford

165 Beef cattle feedlots (except stockyards for transportation) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 38 employers in Hereford, TX · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Fairleigh Feed Yard 5.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Yuma Feedlot 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Friona Cattle Feeders North #1 5.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR FORT KEARNY CONSOLIDATED 5.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Village Farms of Monahans 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lubbock Feeders, LLC 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE SEABOARD FOODS LP 501-508 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Harwood Hatchery 25 FTE
CITY-NEAR Caviness Beef 1,334 FTE
CITY-NEAR Caviness 781 FTE
CITY-NEAR Nestle Purina Pet Car (Merrick Pet Care) 372 FTE
CITY-NEAR Merrick Petcare 366 FTE
NAT-TCR Maple Lawn Medical Care Facility 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR FM 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Hyannis 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Kraft South Assembly & Distribution 5.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Propak - Searcy, AR 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Best Built, Inc. 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE CFE Rock Valley 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE National Distribution Centers LLC-1431 Vultee Blvd 25 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.