Ecuador vs Republic of Moldova: Ammonia, anhydrous — Agricultural Use
Ammonia, anhydrous — Agricultural Use over time
- Ecuador
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Republic of Moldova currently reports 811 t against 198 t in Ecuador, a difference of 613 t.
That makes Republic of Moldova's figure about 4.1 times Ecuador's.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Ecuador ahead.
Ecuador ranks 5th and Republic of Moldova ranks 1st of 29 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 1 and Republic of Moldova in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 395 t | 322.17 t | 72.83 t | Ecuador |
| 2020s | 207 t | 624.5 t | 417.5 t | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher ammonia, anhydrous — agricultural use, Ecuador or Republic of Moldova?
- Republic of Moldova, at 811 t against 198 t in Ecuador as of 2021.
- What is the difference in ammonia, anhydrous — agricultural use between Ecuador and Republic of Moldova?
- 613 t, with Republic of Moldova ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Republic of Moldova?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2021.
- How do Ecuador and Republic of Moldova rank globally for ammonia, anhydrous — agricultural use?
- Ecuador ranks 5th and Republic of Moldova ranks 1st of 29 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Ammonia, anhydrous — Agricultural Use. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Fertilizers by Product dataset contains information on the Production, Trade and Agriculture Use of inorganic (chemical or mineral) fertilizers products. The fertilizer statistics data are for a set of 23 product categories. Both straight and compound fertilizers are included. Methodological details can be found at: https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/RFB/RFB_EN_README.pdf