Turkmenistan vs Uganda: Other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — Import quantity
Other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — Import quantity over time
- Turkmenistan
- Uganda
How they compare
Uganda currently reports 380.31 t against 307.06 t in Turkmenistan, a difference of 73.25 t.
That makes Uganda's figure about 1.2 times Turkmenistan's.
Across all 16 years both countries report, Uganda has been ahead every year.
Turkmenistan ranks 83rd and Uganda ranks 81st of 181 countries.
Uganda has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Turkmenistan | Uganda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 276.28 t | 1,046 t | 769.47 t | Uganda |
| 2010s | 162.49 t | 1,288 t | 1,125 t | Uganda |
| 2020s | 337 t | 2,499 t | 2,162 t | Uganda |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — import quantity, Turkmenistan or Uganda?
- Uganda, at 380.31 t against 307.06 t in Turkmenistan as of 2024.
- What is the difference in other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — import quantity between Turkmenistan and Uganda?
- 73.25 t, with Uganda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Turkmenistan and Uganda?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2024.
- How do Turkmenistan and Uganda rank globally for other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — import quantity?
- Turkmenistan ranks 83rd and Uganda ranks 81st of 181 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Other potassic fertilizers, n.e.c. — Import quantity. 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