Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs): Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. was 311,957 1000 Int$ in 2024. ▲ Rising
Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), 1961–2024
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Measured in 1000 Int$.
Analysis
Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) recorded 311,957 1000 Int$ for edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in 2024.
The figure is down 0.1% on the previous year and up 4.7% over ten years.
Over the whole period, edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) peaked at 658,161 1000 Int$ in 1992 and was at its lowest, 115,455 1000 Int$, in 1993.
That places Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) 6th out of 25 groups with data for 2024, putting it in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 64 years of available data.
Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), year by year
| Year | 1000 Int$ | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1961 | 125,347 1000 Int$ | — |
| 1962 | 129,423 1000 Int$ | +3.3% |
| 1963 | 131,209 1000 Int$ | +1.4% |
| 1964 | 132,670 1000 Int$ | +1.1% |
| 1965 | 134,914 1000 Int$ | +1.7% |
| 1966 | 138,074 1000 Int$ | +2.3% |
| 1967 | 141,495 1000 Int$ | +2.5% |
| 1968 | 145,788 1000 Int$ | +3.0% |
| 1969 | 147,641 1000 Int$ | +1.3% |
| 1970 | 150,866 1000 Int$ | +2.2% |
| 1971 | 154,265 1000 Int$ | +2.3% |
| 1972 | 158,515 1000 Int$ | +2.8% |
| 1973 | 169,781 1000 Int$ | +7.1% |
| 1974 | 193,295 1000 Int$ | +13.8% |
| 1975 | 225,809 1000 Int$ | +16.8% |
| 1976 | 248,320 1000 Int$ | +10.0% |
| 1977 | 296,631 1000 Int$ | +19.5% |
| 1978 | 337,383 1000 Int$ | +13.7% |
| 1979 | 382,891 1000 Int$ | +13.5% |
| 1980 | 404,677 1000 Int$ | +5.7% |
| 1981 | 425,575 1000 Int$ | +5.2% |
| 1982 | 448,304 1000 Int$ | +5.3% |
| 1983 | 474,215 1000 Int$ | +5.8% |
| 1984 | 443,031 1000 Int$ | -6.6% |
| 1985 | 465,897 1000 Int$ | +5.2% |
| 1986 | 512,654 1000 Int$ | +10.0% |
| 1987 | 534,404 1000 Int$ | +4.2% |
| 1988 | 577,749 1000 Int$ | +8.1% |
| 1989 | 557,173 1000 Int$ | -3.6% |
| 1990 | 632,781 1000 Int$ | +13.6% |
| 1991 | 606,892 1000 Int$ | -4.1% |
| 1992 | 658,161 1000 Int$ | +8.4% |
| 1993 | 115,455 1000 Int$ | -82.5% |
| 1994 | 123,778 1000 Int$ | +7.2% |
| 1995 | 132,925 1000 Int$ | +7.4% |
| 1996 | 140,176 1000 Int$ | +5.5% |
| 1997 | 145,731 1000 Int$ | +4.0% |
| 1998 | 167,263 1000 Int$ | +14.8% |
| 1999 | 173,414 1000 Int$ | +3.7% |
| 2000 | 182,284 1000 Int$ | +5.1% |
| 2001 | 189,804 1000 Int$ | +4.1% |
| 2002 | 202,888 1000 Int$ | +6.9% |
| 2003 | 214,240 1000 Int$ | +5.6% |
| 2004 | 222,992 1000 Int$ | +4.1% |
| 2005 | 232,698 1000 Int$ | +4.4% |
| 2006 | 241,043 1000 Int$ | +3.6% |
| 2007 | 247,278 1000 Int$ | +2.6% |
| 2008 | 254,571 1000 Int$ | +2.9% |
| 2009 | 266,220 1000 Int$ | +4.6% |
| 2010 | 281,249 1000 Int$ | +5.6% |
| 2011 | 289,151 1000 Int$ | +2.8% |
| 2012 | 291,963 1000 Int$ | +1.0% |
| 2013 | 291,733 1000 Int$ | -0.1% |
| 2014 | 297,827 1000 Int$ | +2.1% |
| 2015 | 319,588 1000 Int$ | +7.3% |
| 2016 | 303,267 1000 Int$ | -5.1% |
| 2017 | 307,620 1000 Int$ | +1.4% |
| 2018 | 313,215 1000 Int$ | +1.8% |
| 2019 | 308,862 1000 Int$ | -1.4% |
| 2020 | 313,479 1000 Int$ | +1.5% |
| 2021 | 312,775 1000 Int$ | -0.2% |
| 2022 | 311,656 1000 Int$ | -0.4% |
| 2023 | 312,306 1000 Int$ | +0.2% |
| 2024 | 311,957 1000 Int$ | -0.1% |
Biggest year-on-year movements
Years where Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) changed far more than this series normally does. A large move can be a real event or a change in how the figure was measured — the source note below says who published it.
| Year | Change | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | -82.5% | 658,161 1000 Int$ | 115,455 1000 Int$ |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 136,285 1000 Int$ | 125,347 1000 Int$ | 147,641 1000 Int$ | 9 |
| 1970s | 231,776 1000 Int$ | 150,866 1000 Int$ | 382,891 1000 Int$ | 10 |
| 1980s | 484,368 1000 Int$ | 404,677 1000 Int$ | 577,749 1000 Int$ | 10 |
| 1990s | 289,658 1000 Int$ | 115,455 1000 Int$ | 658,161 1000 Int$ | 10 |
| 2000s | 225,402 1000 Int$ | 182,284 1000 Int$ | 266,220 1000 Int$ | 10 |
| 2010s | 300,448 1000 Int$ | 281,249 1000 Int$ | 319,588 1000 Int$ | 10 |
| 2020s | 312,435 1000 Int$ | 311,656 1000 Int$ | 313,479 1000 Int$ | 5 |
Countries ranked near Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
- 3 Indonesia 83,732 1000 Int$ compare
- 3 Lao People's Democratic Republic 1.08 million 1000 Int$ compare
- 4 Namibia 82,662 1000 Int$ compare
- 5 Democratic Republic of the Congo 201,027 1000 Int$ compare
- 5 Papua New Guinea 80,554 1000 Int$ compare
- 6 Thailand 61,042 1000 Int$ compare
- 7 Peru 60,238 1000 Int$ compare
- 7 Melanesia 81,432 1000 Int$ compare
- 8 Mexico 40,089 1000 Int$ compare
- 8 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 13,686 1000 Int$ compare
- 9 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 10,828 1000 Int$ compare
- 9 Nepal 33,445 1000 Int$ compare
More agriculture & rural data for Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)
- Oilcrops, Oil Equivalent — Yield, annual growth rate 0.8325 % change on previous year (2024)
- Milk, Total — Milk Animals, annual growth rate 1.22 % change on previous year (2024)
- Oilcrops, Cake Equivalent — Area harvested, annual growth rate 0.3055 % change on previous year (2024)
- Oilcrops, Cake Equivalent — Yield, annual growth rate 0.9219 % change on previous year (2024)
- Oilcrops, Cake Equivalent — Production, annual growth rate 1.24 % change on previous year (2024)
- Oilcrops, Oil Equivalent — Area harvested, annual growth rate 0.2261 % change on previous year (2024)
- Poultry Birds — Stocks, annual growth rate 2.66 % change on previous year (2024)
- Pulses, Total — Yield, annual growth rate 4.33 % change on previous year (2024)
- Pulses, Total — Area harvested, annual growth rate -0.9081 % change on previous year (2024)
- Milk, Total — Production, annual growth rate 3.02 % change on previous year (2024)
Frequently asked questions
- What is edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
- Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) was 311,957 1000 Int$ in 2024, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
- What is the highest edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. recorded in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
- The highest recorded value was 658,161 1000 Int$ in 1992.
- What is the lowest edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. recorded in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
- The lowest recorded value was 115,455 1000 Int$ in 1993.
- How does Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) rank for edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c.?
- Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) ranks 6th out of 25 groups with data for 2024.
- Is edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c. rising or falling in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)?
- Over the last ten years it is up 4.7%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) data come from?
- The figures come from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as part of Edible roots and tubers with high starch or inulin content, n.e.c., fresh — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 64 observations, free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO).
About this data
The domain provides detailed data on the value of agricultural production that is calculated by the agricultural production data and the price data at farm gate. Thus, the value of production measures the agricultural production in monetary terms at the farm gate level.