Statizoid

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia: Major livestock types — Share in total livestock was 100 %LSU in 1992. ▬ Flat

Latest (1992)
100 %LSU
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 211 countries
All-time high
100 %LSU
in 1961
All-time low
100 %LSU
in 1961
Years of data
32
1961–1992

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Czechoslovakia, 1961–1992

0204060801001961197619921961: 100 %LSU1962: 100 %LSU1963: 100 %LSU1964: 100 %LSU1965: 100 %LSU1966: 100 %LSU1967: 100 %LSU1968: 100 %LSU1969: 100 %LSU1970: 100 %LSU1971: 100 %LSU1972: 100 %LSU1973: 100 %LSU1974: 100 %LSU1975: 100 %LSU1976: 100 %LSU1977: 100 %LSU1978: 100 %LSU1979: 100 %LSU1980: 100 %LSU1981: 100 %LSU1982: 100 %LSU1983: 100 %LSU1984: 100 %LSU1985: 100 %LSU1986: 100 %LSU1987: 100 %LSU1988: 100 %LSU1989: 100 %LSU1990: 100 %LSU1991: 100 %LSU1992: 100 %LSU

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Measured in %LSU.

Analysis

Czechoslovakia recorded 100 %LSU for major livestock types — share in total livestock in 1992. That is the highest value across all 32 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, major livestock types — share in total livestock in Czechoslovakia peaked at 100 %LSU in 1961 and was at its lowest, 100 %LSU, in 1961.

That places Czechoslovakia 1st out of 211 countries with data for 1992, putting it in the top 10%.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
1960s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 9
1970s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
1980s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
1990s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 3

Countries ranked near Czechoslovakia

  1. 1 Afghanistan 100 %LSU compare
  2. 1 Albania 100 %LSU compare
  3. 1 Algeria 100 %LSU compare
  4. 1 Angola 100 %LSU compare
  5. 1 Antigua and Barbuda 100 %LSU compare
  6. 1 Argentina 100 %LSU compare
  7. 1 Armenia 100 %LSU
  8. 1 Australia 100 %LSU compare
  9. 1 Austria 100 %LSU compare
  10. 1 Azerbaijan 100 %LSU
  11. 1 Bahamas 100 %LSU compare
  12. 1 Bahrain 100 %LSU compare
  13. 1 Bangladesh 100 %LSU compare
  14. 1 Barbados 100 %LSU compare
  15. 1 Belarus 100 %LSU
  16. 1 Belgium 100 %LSU
  17. 1 Belgium-Luxembourg 100 %LSU compare
  18. 1 Belize 100 %LSU compare
  19. 1 Benin 100 %LSU compare
  20. 1 Bhutan 100 %LSU compare
  21. 1 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 100 %LSU compare
  22. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 %LSU
  23. 1 Botswana 100 %LSU compare
  24. 1 Brazil 100 %LSU compare
  25. 1 Brunei Darussalam 100 %LSU compare
  26. 1 Bulgaria 100 %LSU compare
  27. 1 Burkina Faso 100 %LSU compare
  28. 1 Burundi 100 %LSU compare
  29. 1 Cabo Verde 100 %LSU compare
  30. 1 Cambodia 100 %LSU compare
  31. 1 Cameroon 100 %LSU compare
  32. 1 Canada 100 %LSU compare
  33. 1 Chad 100 %LSU compare
  34. 1 Chile 100 %LSU compare
  35. 1 China 100 %LSU compare
  36. 1 China, Hong Kong SAR 100 %LSU compare
  37. 1 China, Macao SAR 100 %LSU compare
  38. 1 China, mainland 100 %LSU compare
  39. 1 China, Taiwan Province of 100 %LSU compare
  40. 1 Colombia 100 %LSU compare
  41. 1 Comoros 100 %LSU compare
  42. 1 Congo 100 %LSU compare
  43. 1 Cook Islands 100 %LSU compare
  44. 1 Costa Rica 100 %LSU compare
  45. 1 Côte d'Ivoire 100 %LSU compare
  46. 1 Croatia 100 %LSU
  47. 1 Cuba 100 %LSU compare
  48. 1 Cyprus 100 %LSU compare
  49. 1 Czechia 100 %LSU
  50. 1 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 100 %LSU compare
  51. 1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 100 %LSU compare
  52. 1 Denmark 100 %LSU compare
  53. 1 Djibouti 100 %LSU compare
  54. 1 Dominica 100 %LSU compare
  55. 1 Dominican Republic 100 %LSU compare
  56. 1 Ecuador 100 %LSU compare
  57. 1 Egypt 100 %LSU compare
  58. 1 El Salvador 100 %LSU compare
  59. 1 Equatorial Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  60. 1 Eritrea 100 %LSU
  61. 1 Estonia 100 %LSU
  62. 1 Eswatini 100 %LSU compare
  63. 1 Ethiopia 100 %LSU
  64. 1 Ethiopia PDR 100 %LSU compare
  65. 1 Faroe Islands 100 %LSU compare
  66. 1 Fiji 100 %LSU compare
  67. 1 Finland 100 %LSU compare
  68. 1 France 100 %LSU compare
  69. 1 French Guiana 100 %LSU compare
  70. 1 French Polynesia 100 %LSU compare
  71. 1 Gabon 100 %LSU compare
  72. 1 Gambia 100 %LSU compare
  73. 1 Georgia 100 %LSU
  74. 1 Germany 100 %LSU compare
  75. 1 Ghana 100 %LSU compare
  76. 1 Greece 100 %LSU compare
  77. 1 Grenada 100 %LSU compare
  78. 1 Guadeloupe 100 %LSU compare
  79. 1 Guatemala 100 %LSU compare
  80. 1 Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  81. 1 Guinea-Bissau 100 %LSU compare
  82. 1 Guyana 100 %LSU compare
  83. 1 Haiti 100 %LSU compare
  84. 1 Honduras 100 %LSU compare
  85. 1 Hungary 100 %LSU compare
  86. 1 Iceland 100 %LSU compare
  87. 1 India 100 %LSU compare
  88. 1 Indonesia 100 %LSU compare
  89. 1 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 100 %LSU compare
  90. 1 Iraq 100 %LSU compare
  91. 1 Ireland 100 %LSU compare
  92. 1 Israel 100 %LSU compare
  93. 1 Italy 100 %LSU compare
  94. 1 Jamaica 100 %LSU compare
  95. 1 Japan 100 %LSU compare
  96. 1 Jordan 100 %LSU compare
  97. 1 Kazakhstan 100 %LSU
  98. 1 Kenya 100 %LSU compare
  99. 1 Kiribati 100 %LSU compare
  100. 1 Kuwait 100 %LSU compare
  101. 1 Kyrgyzstan 100 %LSU
  102. 1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 100 %LSU compare
  103. 1 Latvia 100 %LSU
  104. 1 Lebanon 100 %LSU compare
  105. 1 Lesotho 100 %LSU compare
  106. 1 Liberia 100 %LSU compare
  107. 1 Libya 100 %LSU compare
  108. 1 Lithuania 100 %LSU
  109. 1 Luxembourg 100 %LSU
  110. 1 Madagascar 100 %LSU compare
  111. 1 Malawi 100 %LSU compare
  112. 1 Malaysia 100 %LSU compare
  113. 1 Mali 100 %LSU compare
  114. 1 Malta 100 %LSU compare
  115. 1 Martinique 100 %LSU compare
  116. 1 Mauritania 100 %LSU compare
  117. 1 Mauritius 100 %LSU compare
  118. 1 Mexico 100 %LSU compare
  119. 1 Micronesia (Federated States of) 100 %LSU
  120. 1 Mongolia 100 %LSU compare
  121. 1 Montenegro 100 %LSU
  122. 1 Morocco 100 %LSU compare
  123. 1 Mozambique 100 %LSU compare
  124. 1 Myanmar 100 %LSU compare
  125. 1 Namibia 100 %LSU compare
  126. 1 Nauru 100 %LSU compare
  127. 1 Nepal 100 %LSU compare
  128. 1 Netherlands (Kingdom of the) 100 %LSU compare
  129. 1 New Caledonia 100 %LSU compare
  130. 1 New Zealand 100 %LSU compare
  131. 1 Nicaragua 100 %LSU compare
  132. 1 Niger 100 %LSU compare
  133. 1 Nigeria 100 %LSU compare
  134. 1 Niue 100 %LSU compare
  135. 1 North Macedonia 100 %LSU
  136. 1 Norway 100 %LSU compare
  137. 1 Oman 100 %LSU compare
  138. 1 Pakistan 100 %LSU compare
  139. 1 Palestine 100 %LSU
  140. 1 Panama 100 %LSU compare
  141. 1 Papua New Guinea 100 %LSU compare
  142. 1 Paraguay 100 %LSU compare
  143. 1 Peru 100 %LSU compare
  144. 1 Philippines 100 %LSU compare
  145. 1 Poland 100 %LSU compare
  146. 1 Portugal 100 %LSU compare
  147. 1 Puerto Rico 100 %LSU compare
  148. 1 Qatar 100 %LSU compare
  149. 1 Republic of Korea 100 %LSU compare
  150. 1 Republic of Moldova 100 %LSU
  151. 1 Romania 100 %LSU compare
  152. 1 Russian Federation 100 %LSU
  153. 1 Rwanda 100 %LSU compare
  154. 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 100 %LSU compare
  155. 1 Saint Lucia 100 %LSU compare
  156. 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 100 %LSU compare
  157. 1 Samoa 100 %LSU compare
  158. 1 Sao Tome and Principe 100 %LSU compare
  159. 1 Saudi Arabia 100 %LSU compare
  160. 1 Senegal 100 %LSU compare
  161. 1 Serbia 100 %LSU
  162. 1 Serbia and Montenegro 100 %LSU
  163. 1 Seychelles 100 %LSU compare
  164. 1 Sierra Leone 100 %LSU compare
  165. 1 Singapore 100 %LSU compare
  166. 1 Slovakia 100 %LSU
  167. 1 Slovenia 100 %LSU
  168. 1 Solomon Islands 100 %LSU compare
  169. 1 Somalia 100 %LSU compare
  170. 1 South Sudan 100 %LSU
  171. 1 Spain 100 %LSU compare
  172. 1 Sri Lanka 100 %LSU compare
  173. 1 Sudan 100 %LSU
  174. 1 Sudan (former) 100 %LSU compare
  175. 1 Suriname 100 %LSU compare
  176. 1 Sweden 100 %LSU compare
  177. 1 Switzerland 100 %LSU compare
  178. 1 Syrian Arab Republic 100 %LSU compare
  179. 1 Tajikistan 100 %LSU
  180. 1 Thailand 100 %LSU compare
  181. 1 Timor-Leste 100 %LSU compare
  182. 1 Togo 100 %LSU compare
  183. 1 Tokelau 100 %LSU compare
  184. 1 Tonga 100 %LSU compare
  185. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 100 %LSU compare
  186. 1 Tunisia 100 %LSU compare
  187. 1 Türkiye 100 %LSU compare
  188. 1 Turkmenistan 100 %LSU
  189. 1 Tuvalu 100 %LSU compare
  190. 1 Uganda 100 %LSU compare
  191. 1 Ukraine 100 %LSU
  192. 1 United Arab Emirates 100 %LSU compare
  193. 1 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 100 %LSU compare
  194. 1 United Republic of Tanzania 100 %LSU compare
  195. 1 Uruguay 100 %LSU compare
  196. 1 USSR 100 %LSU compare
  197. 1 Uzbekistan 100 %LSU
  198. 1 Vanuatu 100 %LSU compare
  199. 1 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 100 %LSU compare
  200. 1 Viet Nam 100 %LSU compare
  201. 1 Yemen 100 %LSU compare
  202. 1 Yugoslav SFR 100 %LSU compare
  203. 1 Zambia 100 %LSU compare
  204. 1 Zimbabwe 100 %LSU compare
  205. 1 Caribbean 100 %LSU compare
  206. 1 Australia and New Zealand 100 %LSU compare
  207. 1 Melanesia 100 %LSU compare
  208. 1 Micronesia 100 %LSU compare
  209. 1 Polynesia 100 %LSU compare
  210. 1 OECD 100 %LSU compare

See the full ranking of 246 places →

More environment data for Czechoslovakia

All data for Czechoslovakia →

Frequently asked questions

What is major livestock types — share in total livestock in Czechoslovakia?
Major livestock types — share in total livestock in Czechoslovakia was 100 %LSU in 1992, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
What is the highest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Czechoslovakia?
The highest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
What is the lowest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Czechoslovakia?
The lowest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
How does Czechoslovakia rank for major livestock types — share in total livestock?
Czechoslovakia ranks 1st out of 211 countries with data for 1992.
Is major livestock types — share in total livestock rising or falling in Czechoslovakia?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Czechoslovakia data come from?
The figures come from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as part of Major livestock types — Share in total livestock. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 32 observations, free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO).

About this data

Indicator
Major livestock types — Share in total livestock
Unit
%LSU
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
246 places, 14,138 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

The Livestock Patterns domain of FAOSTAT contains data on livestock numbers, shares of major livestock species and densities of livestock units in the agricultural land area. Values are calculated using Livestock Units (LSU), which facilitate aggregating information for different livestock types. Data are available by country, with global coverage, for the period 1961 to the most recent year available with annual updates. This methodology applies the LSU coefficients reported in the "Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews" (FAO, 2011). From this publication, LSU coefficients are computed by livestock type and by country. The reference unit used for the calculation of livestock units (=1 LSU) is the grazing equivalent of one adult dairy cow producing 3000 kg of milk annually, fed without additional concentrated foodstuffs. FAOSTAT agri-environmental indicators on livestock patterns closely follow the structure of the indicators in EUROSTAT.