Industry profile · NAICS 311613

Oil, animal, rendering

Workplace injury rates across 142 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.

142
Employers
6.1
Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
2,341
Injuries

The industry picture

Employers in Oil, animal, rendering average 6.1 recordable injuries per 100 workers, 1.8 times the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.

6.1
avg TCR · reporting employers
3.3
BLS national benchmark
142
employers reporting
2,341
recordable injuries

OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.

What Oil, animal, rendering Safety Data Reveals

The Oil, animal, rendering sector (NAICS 311613) encompasses 142 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 2,341 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 6.1 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year. Because OSHA's ITA mandates submission from establishments with 250+ employees plus all high-hazard industries at 20+ employees, this dataset represents a structural slice of U.S. workplace risk rather than a voluntary sample.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate national benchmark TCR of 3.3 for this NAICS code, derived from the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Comparing the two, the ITA-reported rate of 6.1 is higher than the BLS benchmark, a gap that typically widens when the industry contains many large, high-exposure establishments required to file ITA reports. Employers in the table below are sorted so you can see how far individual establishments deviate from both the industry average and the national benchmark.

The practical value of industry-level safety data is threefold. First, jobseekers can gauge whether a prospective employer is better or worse than its industry peers, not just absolute injury counts, which tilt toward larger payrolls. Second, insurers and workers' compensation carriers use sector TCR as a baseline for experience-modification adjustments. Third, safety professionals benchmark their own programs against the cohort median. Use the grade-sorted employer list below to identify specific establishments within Oil, animal, rendering that outperform or underperform the sector average, and click through to each record for year-by-year injury, illness, and fatality breakdowns.

Employers in this industry, by injury rate

Page 1 of 4
Employer LocationGradeAvg TCR
County Services - Hereford Hereford, TX F 23.6
Sanimax, USA South Saint Paul, MN F 19.6
Darling International Inc Des Moines, IA F 18.3
Darling Ingredients: Holden Holden, LA F 15.5
Darling Ingredients Newark, NJ F 15.1
Central Bi Products Estherville Estherville, IA F 14.0
Protein Conversion Moorefield, WV F 13.5
Darling Ingredients Inc National Stock Yards, IL F 13.1
Darling Ingredients - Somerset Somerset, PA F 12.8
Protein Products, Inc. Sunflower, MS F 12.3
Darling Ingredients - Hamilton Hamilton, MI F 12.1
Darling Ingredients Linville, VA F 11.7
Darling Ingredients Columbus Indiana Columbus, IN F 11.7
Darling Ingredients: St. Louis National Stockyards, IL F 11.6
Butler Rendering Butler, KY F 11.2
Darling Kuna Kuna, ID F 11.0
Darling Ingredients Inc., Bastrop Bastrop, TX F 10.7
Pacific Bioproducts Warrenton Warrenton, OR F 10.6
Darling Ingredients, Inc. Blue Earth, MN F 10.2
Darling Ingredients-Russellville Russellville, KY F 10.0
County Services - Plainview Plainview, TX F 9.9
Darling Ingredients Inc. Collinsville, OK Collinsville, OK F 9.8
Darling Ingredients Hamilton, MI F 9.6
Darling Ingredients Dallas, TX Dallas, TX F 9.3
Central Bi Products Long Prairie Long Prairie, MN F 9.3
Sanimax ATO South Saint Paul, MN F 9.2
Pilgrims Moorefield Protein Conversion Moorefield, WV F 9.2
Darling Ingredients Inc Coldwater Coldwater, MI F 9.2
Jackson 100 Jackson, MS F 9.0
Central Bi Products North Redwood Falls Redwood Falls, MN F 9.0
Darling Ingredients Wichita Wichita, KS F 8.8
Baker Commodities Phoenix, AZ F 8.7
Central Bi-Products - Redwood Falls Redwood Falls, MN F 8.5
RVI-Scranton Scranton, AR F 8.4
Darling Ingredients Rose Hill Division Rose Hill, NC F 8.1
RVI-Robards Robards, KY F 8.0
RVI-Forest Forest, MS F 7.8
Darling Ingredients Clinton Clinton, IA F 7.7
Darling Ingredients Inc San Francisco, CA F 7.6
Berlin WI Darling Ingredients Berlin, WI F 7.3
Mountain View Rendering Co., LLC Edinburg, VA F 7.3
RVI-Clarksville Clarksville, AR F 7.3
Terra Renewal Inc Dardanelle, AR F 7.3
Darling Ingredients Inc. Lexington, NE F 7.2
Progressive Protein Omaha, NE F 7.2
Darling Ingredients Inc. - Terre Hill, Pa. East Earl, PA F 7.2
Darling Ingredients LLC Tampa Tampa, FL F 7.2
Tacoma Darling Ingredients Tacoma, WA F 7.1
RVI-Harmony Harmony, NC F 7.0
Darling Ingredients, Inc Denver Denver, CO F 7.0
Page 1 of 4 Next →
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial

Verify with BLS →

Verify with OSHA →

Working in Oil, animal, rendering?

This sector averages 6.1 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.

Sector figures use the credible-subset mean across reporting employers; a benchmark is not any single establishment's measured rate.

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.