Latvia vs South Sudan: Input — Cropland nitrogen
Input — Cropland nitrogen over time
- Latvia
- South Sudan
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 108,526 t against 99,432 t in South Sudan, a difference of 9,094 t.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times South Sudan's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 12 shared years of data; in 2012 it was South Sudan ahead.
Latvia ranks 101st and South Sudan ranks 103rd of 186 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | South Sudan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 101,150 t | 83,750 t | 17,400 t | Latvia |
| 2020s | 118,840 t | 97,445 t | 21,394 t | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher input — cropland nitrogen, Latvia or South Sudan?
- Latvia, at 108,526 t against 99,432 t in South Sudan as of 2023.
- What is the difference in input — cropland nitrogen between Latvia and South Sudan?
- 9,094 t, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and South Sudan?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2023.
- How do Latvia and South Sudan rank globally for input — cropland nitrogen?
- Latvia ranks 101st and South Sudan ranks 103rd of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Input — Cropland nitrogen. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Cropland Nutrient balance domain contains information on the flows of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from mineral fertilizer, manure applied, atmospheric deposition, crop removal, and biological fixation over cropland and per unit area of cropland. The flows are aggregated to total inputs and total outputs, from which the overall nutrient balance and nutrient use efficiency on cropland are calculated. Statistics are disseminated in units of tonnes and in kg/ha, as appropriate. Nutrient use efficiency is expressed as a fraction (%).