Serbia vs Tonga: Food production index
Serbia
98.37 2014-2016 = 100
in 2022
Tonga
97.78 2014-2016 = 100
in 2022
Serbia rank
152nd
Tonga rank
155th
Food production index over time
- Serbia
- Tonga
How they compare
Serbia currently reports 98.37 2014-2016 = 100 against 97.78 2014-2016 = 100 in Tonga, a difference of 0.59 2014-2016 = 100.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Tonga ahead.
Serbia ranks 152nd and Tonga ranks 155th of 195 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Serbia averaged higher in 1 and Tonga in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Serbia | Tonga | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 98.34 2014-2016 = 100 | 124.4 2014-2016 = 100 | 26.06 2014-2016 = 100 | Tonga |
| 2010s | 99.02 2014-2016 = 100 | 110.53 2014-2016 = 100 | 11.51 2014-2016 = 100 | Tonga |
| 2020s | 104.51 2014-2016 = 100 | 97.46 2014-2016 = 100 | 7.05 2014-2016 = 100 | Serbia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher food production index, Serbia or Tonga?
- Serbia, at 98.37 2014-2016 = 100 against 97.78 2014-2016 = 100 in Tonga as of 2022.
- What is the difference in food production index between Serbia and Tonga?
- 0.59 2014-2016 = 100, with Serbia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Serbia and Tonga?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2022.
- How do Serbia and Tonga rank globally for food production index?
- Serbia ranks 152nd and Tonga ranks 155th of 195 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- FAO electronic files and web site, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), publisher: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Food production index (2014-2016 = 100). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Food production index covers food crops that are considered edible and that contain nutrients. Coffee and tea are excluded because, although edible, they have no nutritive value.