Cuba vs Georgia: Potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (MOP) — Import quantity
Potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (MOP) — Import quantity over time
- Cuba
- Georgia
How they compare
Georgia currently reports 1,128 t against 1,044 t in Cuba, a difference of 84 t.
That makes Georgia's figure about 1.1 times Cuba's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 22 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Cuba ahead.
Cuba ranks 109th and Georgia ranks 108th of 178 countries.
Cuba has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cuba | Georgia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 47,127 t | 117.37 t | 47,010 t | Cuba |
| 2010s | 54,553 t | 469.22 t | 54,083 t | Cuba |
| 2020s | 2,873 t | 770.03 t | 2,103 t | Cuba |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (mop) — import quantity, Cuba or Georgia?
- Georgia, at 1,128 t against 1,044 t in Cuba as of 2024.
- What is the difference in potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (mop) — import quantity between Cuba and Georgia?
- 84 t, with Georgia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and Georgia?
- 22 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2024.
- How do Cuba and Georgia rank globally for potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (mop) — import quantity?
- Cuba ranks 109th and Georgia ranks 108th of 178 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Potassium chloride (muriate of potash) (MOP) — 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