Congo vs Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs): Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c.

Congo
107.67
in 2024
Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
101.65
in 2024
Congo rank
13th
Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) rank
15th

Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. over time

  • Congo
  • Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
50100150200196119922024

How they compare

Congo currently reports 107.67 against 101.65 in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), a difference of 6.02.

That makes Congo's figure about 1.1 times Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)'s.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 64 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) ahead.

Congo ranks 13th and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) ranks 15th of 63 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Congo averaged higher in 2 and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Congo Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) Difference Ahead
1960s 30.43 44.41 13.98 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
1970s 36.28 75.52 39.24 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
1980s 43.64 157.83 114.19 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
1990s 62.62 94.38 31.76 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
2000s 66.98 73.45 6.47 Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
2010s 99.98 97.9 2.08 Congo
2020s 107.24 101.81 5.43 Congo

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c., Congo or Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
Congo, at 107.67 against 101.65 in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) as of 2024.
What is the difference in edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. between Congo and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
6.02, with Congo ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Congo and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
64 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2024.
How do Congo and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) rank globally for edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c.?
Congo ranks 13th and Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) ranks 15th of 63 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c., fresh — Gross Production Index Number (2014-2016 = 100). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Congo vs Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs): Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c.. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/edible-roots-and-tubers-with-high-starch-or-inulin-content-n-e-c-fresh-gross-production/congo-rep/low-income-food-deficit-countries-lifdcs/

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://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/edible-roots-and-tubers-with-high-starch-or-inulin-content-n-e-c-fresh-gross-production/congo-rep/low-income-food-deficit-countries-lifdcs/">Congo vs Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs): Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c.</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c., fresh — Gross Production Index Number (2014-2016 = 100)
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
98 places, 5,482 data points, 1961–2024
Last refreshed

The FAO indices of agricultural production show the relative level of the aggregate volume of agricultural production for each year in comparison with the base period 2014-2016. Indices for meat production are computed based on data on production from indigenous animals.