Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) vs Pakistan: Goats β€” Stocks

Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
57.69 million LSU
in 2023
Pakistan
8.47 million LSU
in 2023
Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) rank
2nd
Pakistan rank
5th

Goats β€” Stocks over time

  • Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
  • Pakistan
020.0M40.0M60.0M196119922023

How they compare

Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) currently reports 57.69 million LSU against 8.47 million LSU in Pakistan, a difference of 49.21 million LSU.

That makes Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)'s figure about 6.8 times Pakistan's.

Across all 63 years both countries report, Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) has been ahead every year.

Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) ranks 2nd and Pakistan ranks 5th of 35 groups.

Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) Pakistan Difference Ahead
1960s 13.15 million LSU 1.05 million LSU 12.10 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
1970s 15.31 million LSU 1.97 million LSU 13.34 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
1980s 18.79 million LSU 2.91 million LSU 15.88 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
1990s 25.61 million LSU 4.11 million LSU 21.50 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
2000s 33.79 million LSU 5.36 million LSU 28.43 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
2010s 45.89 million LSU 6.77 million LSU 39.11 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)
2020s 55.98 million LSU 8.14 million LSU 47.83 million LSU Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs)

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher goats β€” stocks, Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) or Pakistan?
Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs), at 57.69 million LSU against 8.47 million LSU in Pakistan as of 2023.
What is the difference in goats β€” stocks between Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) and Pakistan?
49.21 million LSU, with Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) and Pakistan?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) and Pakistan rank globally for goats β€” stocks?
Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) ranks 2nd and Pakistan ranks 5th of 35 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Goats β€” Stocks. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Goats β€” Stocks
Unit
LSU
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
234 places, 13,227 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

The Livestock Patterns domain of FAOSTAT contains data on livestock numbers, shares of major livestock species and densities of livestock units in the agricultural land area. Values are calculated using Livestock Units (LSU), which facilitate aggregating information for different livestock types. Data are available by country, with global coverage, for the period 1961 to the most recent year available with annual updates. This methodology applies the LSU coefficients reported in the "Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews" (FAO, 2011). From this publication, LSU coefficients are computed by livestock type and by country. The reference unit used for the calculation of livestock units (=1 LSU) is the grazing equivalent of one adult dairy cow producing 3000 kg of milk annually, fed without additional concentrated foodstuffs. FAOSTAT agri-environmental indicators on livestock patterns closely follow the structure of the indicators in EUROSTAT.