Lithuania vs Small island developing States: Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses

Lithuania
2,336 t
in 2013
Small island developing States
18 t
in 2013
Lithuania rank
24th
Small island developing States rank
26th

Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses over time

  • Lithuania
  • Small island developing States
02.5k5.0k7.5k10.0k196119872013

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 2,336 t against 18 t in Small island developing States, a difference of 2,318 t.

That makes Lithuania's figure about 129.8 times Small island developing States's.

Across all 22 years both countries report, Lithuania has been ahead every year.

Lithuania ranks 24th and Small island developing States ranks 26th of 137 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania Small island developing States Difference Ahead
1990s 4,561 t 34 t 4,527 t Lithuania
2000s 4,554 t 35.6 t 4,518 t Lithuania
2010s 2,045 t 22.5 t 2,022 t Lithuania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher soft-fibres, other — other uses, Lithuania or Small island developing States?
Lithuania, at 2,336 t against 18 t in Small island developing States as of 2013.
What is the difference in soft-fibres, other — other uses between Lithuania and Small island developing States?
2,318 t, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Small island developing States?
22 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2013.
How do Lithuania and Small island developing States rank globally for soft-fibres, other — other uses?
Lithuania ranks 24th and Small island developing States ranks 26th of 137 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses (non-food). 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

Lithuania vs Small island developing States: Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 01 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/soft-fibres-other-other-uses-non-food/lithuania/small-island-developing-states/

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-other-uses-non-food/lithuania/small-island-developing-states/">Lithuania vs Small island developing States: Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Soft-Fibres, Other — Other uses (non-food)
Unit
t
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
178 places, 8,520 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.