Latvia vs Rwanda: Seed — Cropland potassium
Seed — Cropland potassium over time
- Latvia
- Rwanda
How they compare
Rwanda currently reports 1,263 t against 1,197 t in Latvia, a difference of 66 t.
That makes Rwanda's figure about 1.1 times Latvia's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 32 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 83rd and Rwanda ranks 80th of 201 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 3 and Rwanda in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 2,326 t | 770.33 t | 1,555 t | Latvia |
| 2000s | 1,541 t | 1,308 t | 232.91 t | Latvia |
| 2010s | 1,426 t | 1,107 t | 318.78 t | Latvia |
| 2020s | 1,249 t | 1,270 t | 20.42 t | Rwanda |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher seed — cropland potassium, Latvia or Rwanda?
- Rwanda, at 1,263 t against 1,197 t in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in seed — cropland potassium between Latvia and Rwanda?
- 66 t, with Rwanda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Rwanda?
- 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
- How do Latvia and Rwanda rank globally for seed — cropland potassium?
- Latvia ranks 83rd and Rwanda ranks 80th of 201 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Seed — 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 (%).