Cuba vs New Zealand: Food: Gross Production Value (constant) … square kilometre SLC

Cuba
95.55 1000 SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
New Zealand
78.73 1000 SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Cuba rank
99th
New Zealand rank
102nd

Food: Gross Production Value (constant) … square kilometre SLC over time

  • Cuba
  • New Zealand
50100150200250196119922023

How they compare

Cuba currently reports 95.55 1000 SLC per square kilometre against 78.73 1000 SLC per square kilometre in New Zealand, a difference of 16.82 1000 SLC per square kilometre.

That makes Cuba's figure about 1.2 times New Zealand's.

Across all 63 years both countries report, Cuba has been ahead every year.

Cuba ranks 99th and New Zealand ranks 102nd of 142 countries.

Cuba has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cuba New Zealand Difference Ahead
1960s 89.15 1000 SLC per square kilometre 28.19 1000 SLC per square kilometre 60.97 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
1970s 113.63 1000 SLC per square kilometre 33.64 1000 SLC per square kilometre 80 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
1980s 140.84 1000 SLC per square kilometre 40.47 1000 SLC per square kilometre 100.37 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
1990s 126.38 1000 SLC per square kilometre 47.44 1000 SLC per square kilometre 78.94 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
2000s 214.36 1000 SLC per square kilometre 60.7 1000 SLC per square kilometre 153.66 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
2010s 229.25 1000 SLC per square kilometre 73.35 1000 SLC per square kilometre 155.9 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba
2020s 140.37 1000 SLC per square kilometre 79.26 1000 SLC per square kilometre 61.11 1000 SLC per square kilometre Cuba

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher food — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand slc), per, Cuba or New Zealand?
Cuba, at 95.55 1000 SLC per square kilometre against 78.73 1000 SLC per square kilometre in New Zealand as of 2023.
What is the difference in food — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand slc), per between Cuba and New Zealand?
16.82 1000 SLC per square kilometre, with Cuba ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and New Zealand?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Cuba and New Zealand rank globally for food — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand slc), per?
Cuba ranks 99th and New Zealand ranks 102nd of 142 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Food — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per square kilometre. 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

Cuba vs New Zealand: Food — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 12 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/food-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-slc-per-square-kilometre/cuba/new-zealand/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/food-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-slc-per-square-kilometre/cuba/new-zealand/">Cuba vs New Zealand: Food — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Food — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC), per square kilometre
Unit
1000 SLC per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
142 places, 8,031 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Food — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand SLC) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.