Land Locked Developing Countries vs Latvia: Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity

Land Locked Developing Countries
144 t
in 2013
Latvia
638 t
in 2013
Land Locked Developing Countries rank
24th
Latvia rank
25th

Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity over time

  • Land Locked Developing Countries
  • Latvia
02.0k4.0k6.0k196119872013

How they compare

Latvia currently reports 638 t against 144 t in Land Locked Developing Countries, a difference of 494 t.

That makes Latvia's figure about 4.4 times Land Locked Developing Countries's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 22 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Land Locked Developing Countries ahead.

Land Locked Developing Countries ranks 24th and Latvia ranks 25th of 31 groups.

Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Land Locked Developing Countries Latvia Difference Ahead
1990s 651.5 t 886.62 t 235.12 t Latvia
2000s 923 t 1,516 t 592.6 t Latvia
2010s 139.75 t 1,036 t 896.25 t Latvia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher soft-fibres, other — import quantity, Land Locked Developing Countries or Latvia?
Latvia, at 638 t against 144 t in Land Locked Developing Countries as of 2013.
What is the difference in soft-fibres, other — import quantity between Land Locked Developing Countries and Latvia?
494 t, with Latvia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Land Locked Developing Countries and Latvia?
22 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2013.
How do Land Locked Developing Countries and Latvia rank globally for soft-fibres, other — import quantity?
Land Locked Developing Countries ranks 24th and Latvia ranks 25th of 31 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity. 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

Land Locked Developing Countries vs Latvia: Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 16 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/soft-fibres-other-import-quantity/land-locked-developing-countries/latvia/

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/soft-fibres-other-import-quantity/land-locked-developing-countries/latvia/">Land Locked Developing Countries vs Latvia: Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Soft-Fibres, Other — Import Quantity
Unit
t
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
176 places, 8,414 data points, 1961–2013
Last refreshed

Food Balance Sheet presents a comprehensive picture of the pattern of a country's food supply during a specified reference period. The food balance sheet shows for each food item - i.e. each primary commodity and a number of processed commodities potentially available for human consumption - the sources of supply and its utilization. The total quantity of foodstuffs produced in a country added to the total quantity imported and adjusted to any change in stocks that may have occurred since the beginning of the reference period gives the supply available during that period. On the utilization side a distinction is made between the quantities exported, fed to livestock, used for seed, put to manufacture for food use and non-food uses, losses during storage and transportation, and food supplies available for human consumption. The per caput supply of each such food item available for human consumption is then obtained by dividing the respective quantity by the related data on the population actually partaking of it. Data on per caput food supplies are expressed in terms of quantity and - by applying appropriate food composition factors for all primary and processed products - also in terms of caloric value and protein and fat content.