Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing activities) farming · Nebraska

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc

Columbus, NE · ~45 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
2.1
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc runs at 47% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing activities) farming workplace, earning a grade A.

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc: 2.1 TCR = 47% of Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing activities) farming BLS 4.5 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc safety composite

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 89% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 2.1 per 100 workers

Safer than 89% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

−2.2

2017→2023

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc injury rate improved

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc's TCR fell 2.2 from 2.2 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2018 at 4.1 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=2.2 · 2018=4.1 · 2023=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 112210 · Columbus, NE AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 2.1 · 47% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #3/42
  • PHOTO SEABOARD FOODS LP 46
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~45 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: SEABOARD FOODS LP 46 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sandy Pine Systems, Inc averages 2.1 TCR (47% of the Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing activities) farming BLS benchmark).

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

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc TCR series: 2017=2.2 · 2018=4.1 · 2023=0 · BLS 4.5

Where Sandy Pine Systems, Inc falls in its industry

280 Hog and pig (including breedin establishments

Safer than 89% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Nebraska alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 42 Hog and pig (including breedin employers in Nebraska.

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc (45 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 26 employees and a TCR of 7.7 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 0100200300400 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Sandy Pine Systems, Inc
Sandy Pine Systems, Inc (45 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 26 employees and a TCR of 7.7

Sandy Pine Systems, Inc has more employees than the Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowi median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.7. 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
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 4.1 4.1 2 0 0
2017 2.2 2.2 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

112210 · NE · Columbus

280 Hog and pig (including breeding, farrowing, nursery, and finishing activities) farming employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 3,594 rated employers in Nebraska with headcount on file · 91 employers in Columbus, NE · 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 SEABOARD FOODS LP 46 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR FARM 42106 SOW -EST 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mountain Prairie 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Wen Mar Farms, Inc. 2.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE MPM Farms 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE D.R. Horton, Inc. - Nebraska, LLC 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE Beatrice - Midwest Livestock Systems, LLC 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lund-Ross Constructors 45 FTE
CITY-NEAR BD Columbus West 1,148 FTE
CITY-NEAR BD Pharmaceutical Systems 971 FTE
CITY-NEAR Columbus Community Hospital 833 FTE
CITY-NEAR BD Columbus East 762 FTE
NAT-TCR 104 - Gainesville 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Vineyard Management 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Tennessee Tractor, LLC - Alamo 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Kaiser Aluminum - Warrick 2.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE CF Logistics, LLC. 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE American Red Cross - 1860 Hawthorne Ave Ne 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE American Red Cross - 2131 Deckner Ave 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2003-Ucpmc-Caruso Crp(Coral) 45 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: 2023, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.