Ecuador vs Serbia: Manure applied — Cropland potassium
Manure applied — Cropland potassium over time
- Ecuador
- Serbia
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 64,336 t against 63,830 t in Serbia, a difference of 506 t.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 18 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Serbia ahead.
Ecuador ranks 69th and Serbia ranks 70th of 200 countries.
Serbia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71,584 t | 96,989 t | 25,406 t | Serbia |
| 2010s | 73,603 t | 82,510 t | 8,908 t | Serbia |
| 2020s | 65,623 t | 72,412 t | 6,789 t | Serbia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher manure applied — cropland potassium, Ecuador or Serbia?
- Ecuador, at 64,336 t against 63,830 t in Serbia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in manure applied — cropland potassium between Ecuador and Serbia?
- 506 t, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Serbia?
- 18 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2023.
- How do Ecuador and Serbia rank globally for manure applied — cropland potassium?
- Ecuador ranks 69th and Serbia ranks 70th of 200 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Manure applied — Cropland potassium. 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 (%).