Statizoid

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Eswatini

Eswatini: Major livestock types — Share in total livestock was 100 %LSU in 2023. ▬ Flat

Latest (2023)
100 %LSU
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 192 countries
All-time high
100 %LSU
in 1961
All-time low
100 %LSU
in 1961
Years of data
63
1961–2023

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Eswatini, 1961–2023

020406080100196119922023

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

Analysis

In 2023, major livestock types — share in total livestock in Eswatini stood at 100 %LSU. That is the highest value across all 63 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

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

Eswatini ranks 1st of 192 countries on this measure, 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 10
2000s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
2010s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 10
2020s 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 100 %LSU 4

Countries ranked near Eswatini

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

See the full ranking of 246 places →

More environment data for Eswatini

All data for Eswatini →

Frequently asked questions

What is major livestock types — share in total livestock in Eswatini?
Major livestock types — share in total livestock in Eswatini was 100 %LSU in 2023, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
What is the highest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Eswatini?
The highest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
What is the lowest major livestock types — share in total livestock recorded in Eswatini?
The lowest recorded value was 100 %LSU in 1961.
How does Eswatini rank for major livestock types — share in total livestock?
Eswatini ranks 1st out of 192 countries with data for 2023.
Is major livestock types — share in total livestock rising or falling in Eswatini?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Eswatini 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 — 63 observations, free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Eswatini. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 17 August 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/stat/major-livestock-types-share-in-total-livestock/eswatini/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/stat/major-livestock-types-share-in-total-livestock/eswatini/">Major livestock types — Share in total livestock in Eswatini</a> — Statizoid

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.