How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Gambia?

63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.

Where does this data come from?

Statizoid (derived), published as Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Chile vs Gambia: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per

Chile

0.2525 t per square kilometre

in 2023

Gambia

0.2507 t per square kilometre

in 2023

Chile rank

105th

Gambia rank

106th

Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per over time

Chile
Gambia

How they compare

Chile currently reports 0.2525 t per square kilometre against 0.2507 t per square kilometre in Gambia, a difference of 0.0018 t per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Gambia ahead.

Chile ranks 105th and Gambia ranks 106th of 167 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Gambia in 6.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Chile	Gambia	Difference	Ahead
1960s	0.2066 t per square kilometre	0.2767 t per square kilometre	0.0701 t per square kilometre	Gambia
1970s	0.2192 t per square kilometre	0.3587 t per square kilometre	0.1395 t per square kilometre	Gambia
1980s	0.2543 t per square kilometre	0.3018 t per square kilometre	0.0474 t per square kilometre	Gambia
1990s	0.3225 t per square kilometre	0.327 t per square kilometre	0.0045 t per square kilometre	Gambia
2000s	0.2944 t per square kilometre	0.3706 t per square kilometre	0.0762 t per square kilometre	Gambia
2010s	0.2801 t per square kilometre	0.3704 t per square kilometre	0.0903 t per square kilometre	Gambia
2020s	0.2732 t per square kilometre	0.2398 t per square kilometre	0.0334 t per square kilometre	Chile

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — production, per, Chile or Gambia?: Chile, at 0.2525 t per square kilometre against 0.2507 t per square kilometre in Gambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — production, per between Chile and Gambia?: 0.0018 t per square kilometre, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Gambia?: 63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Chile and Gambia rank globally for meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — production, per?: Chile ranks 105th and Gambia ranks 106th of 167 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, 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

Chile vs Gambia: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/meat-of-cattle-with-the-bone-fresh-or-chilled-production-per-square-kilometre/chile/gambia-the/

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/meat-of-cattle-with-the-bone-fresh-or-chilled-production-per-square-kilometre/chile/gambia-the/">Chile vs Gambia: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production, per square kilometre
Unit: t per square kilometre
Source: Statizoid (derived)
Licence: Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage: 168 places, 9,559 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed: 19 September 2026

Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled — Production 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.