Agriculture production or harvesting crews · California

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc.

Hanford, CA · ~2,932 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.7
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
2
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. runs at 126% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Agriculture production or harvesting crews workplace, earning a grade D.

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc.: 5.7 TCR = 126% of Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS 4.5 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. safety composite

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 70% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 1%), 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).

D

40/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.67 per 100 workers

Safer than 37% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.23 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 2

Safer than 1% 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

−18.5

2020→2024

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. injury rate improved

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc.'s TCR fell 18.5 from 18.8 in 2020 to 0.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 18.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.04× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2020=18.8 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=3.1 · 2023=3.3 · 2024=0.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 115115 · Hanford, CA ABOVE-IND · LARGE

Grade D · TCR 5.7 · 126% of ind

  • DART 0.2 DART
  • RANK #393/620
  • PHOTO Sarc, Inc.
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 180 inj
  • SIZE ~2,932 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Sarc, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. averages 5.7 TCR (126% of the Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS benchmark).

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

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. TCR series: 2020=18.8 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=3.1 · 2023=3.3 · 2024=0.3 · BLS 4.5

Where Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. falls in its industry

836 Agriculture production or harv establishments

Safer than 37% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #393 safest of 620 Agriculture production or harv employers in California.

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. (2,932 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4 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 01,0002,0003,0004,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc.
Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. (2,932 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4

Daniel C. Salas Harvesting Inc. has more employees than the Agriculture production or harvesting cre median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.4. 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 0.3 0.2 39 0 0
2023 3.3 2.9 39 1 0
2022 3.1 2.9 37 1 0
2021 2.9 2.3 30 1 0
2020 18.8 18.6 35 134 2

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

115115 · CA · Hanford

836 Agriculture production or harvesting crews employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 118 employers in Hanford, CA · 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 Sarc, Inc. 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Gerardo Cuevas 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR AZ Alamo Ag Solutions, LLC 5.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Silvia Perez Torres 5.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE 2261-00000300 2,939 FTE
STATE-SIZE 6017-Loc: CORP LOC - USA UNITED STATES - Sacramento 2,924 FTE
STATE-SIZE Los Angeles World Airports 2,923 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2032-02620301 2,922 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hanford Community Hospital 1,849 FTE
CITY-NEAR 9292-AHHF001 - HOSPITAL 1,153 FTE
CITY-NEAR A.M. AG ENTERPRISE, INC. 976 FTE
CITY-NEAR Central Valley Meat Company 844 FTE
NAT-TCR McRae Footwear Division- Wadeville 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR 1257 - Hagerstown 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Wise Residency 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR 10580 Winter Park North 5.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE Southern Ohio Medical Center 2,929 FTE
NAT-SIZE Penn Presbyterian Medical Center 2,935 FTE
NAT-SIZE AL004 2,929 FTE
NAT-SIZE Amazon.com Services LLC - MKE1 2,936 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.