Food production index in Zambia
Zambia: Food production index was 142.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 in 2011. ▲ Rising
Food production index in Zambia, 1961–2011
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, electronic files and web site. Measured in gross, 1999-2001 = 100.
Analysis
Zambia recorded 142.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 for food production index in 2011.
That represents a change of down 3.2% on the previous year and up 68.4% over ten years.
Over the whole period, food production index in Zambia peaked at 146.89 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 in 2010 and was at its lowest, 31.02 gross, 1999-2001 = 100, in 1963.
That places Zambia 6th out of 53 countries with data for 2011, putting it in the top 10%.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 51 years of available data.
Food production index in Zambia, year by year
| Year | gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1961 | 31.74 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | — |
| 1962 | 31.43 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -1.0% |
| 1963 | 31.02 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -1.3% |
| 1964 | 32.7 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +5.4% |
| 1965 | 34.23 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +4.7% |
| 1966 | 37.6 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +9.8% |
| 1967 | 38.47 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +2.3% |
| 1968 | 39.24 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +2.0% |
| 1969 | 40.09 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +2.2% |
| 1970 | 39.23 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -2.1% |
| 1971 | 44.93 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +14.5% |
| 1972 | 51.88 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +15.5% |
| 1973 | 46.97 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -9.5% |
| 1974 | 49.81 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +6.0% |
| 1975 | 58.88 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +18.2% |
| 1976 | 66.17 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +12.4% |
| 1977 | 63.43 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -4.1% |
| 1978 | 58.57 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -7.7% |
| 1979 | 51.33 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -12.4% |
| 1980 | 53.63 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +4.5% |
| 1981 | 54.32 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +1.3% |
| 1982 | 52.48 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -3.4% |
| 1983 | 54.93 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +4.7% |
| 1984 | 54.4 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -1.0% |
| 1985 | 60.39 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +11.0% |
| 1986 | 63.46 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +5.1% |
| 1987 | 63.34 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -0.2% |
| 1988 | 78.07 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +23.3% |
| 1989 | 78.95 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +1.1% |
| 1990 | 74.4 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -5.8% |
| 1991 | 77.16 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +3.7% |
| 1992 | 65.27 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -15.4% |
| 1993 | 86.56 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +32.6% |
| 1994 | 77.5 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -10.5% |
| 1995 | 69.81 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -9.9% |
| 1996 | 82.98 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +18.9% |
| 1997 | 78.37 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -5.6% |
| 1998 | 75.78 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -3.3% |
| 1999 | 85.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +12.4% |
| 2000 | 85 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -0.2% |
| 2001 | 84.45 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -0.6% |
| 2002 | 85.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +0.9% |
| 2003 | 96.15 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +12.9% |
| 2004 | 96.5 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +0.4% |
| 2005 | 97.37 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +0.9% |
| 2006 | 106.13 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +9.0% |
| 2007 | 105.45 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -0.6% |
| 2008 | 104.11 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -1.3% |
| 2009 | 127.32 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +22.3% |
| 2010 | 146.89 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | +15.4% |
| 2011 | 142.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | -3.2% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 35.17 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 31.02 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 40.09 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 9 |
| 1970s | 53.12 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 39.23 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 66.17 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 10 |
| 1980s | 61.4 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 52.48 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 78.95 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 10 |
| 1990s | 77.3 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 65.27 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 86.56 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 10 |
| 2000s | 98.77 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 84.45 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 127.32 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 10 |
| 2010s | 144.54 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 142.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 146.89 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 | 2 |
Countries ranked near Zambia
More agriculture & rural data for Zambia
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), annual 65.37 % change on previous year (2025)
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), per 0.0411 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), per 54.11 current US$ per person (2025)
- Rural population, annual growth rate 1.97 % change on previous year (2025)
- Rural population, per unit of GDP 0.0004 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Rural population, per capita 0.5408 units per person (2025)
- Share of GDP from agriculture 4.1% (2025)
- Agriculture as a share of GDP vs. GDP per capita 4.1% (2025)
- Agricultural raw materials exports 0.4% (2024)
- Agricultural raw materials imports 0.7% (2024)
Frequently asked questions
- What is food production index in Zambia?
- Food production index in Zambia was 142.2 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 in 2011, according to Food and Agriculture Organization, electronic files and web site.
- What is the highest food production index recorded in Zambia?
- The highest recorded value was 146.89 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 in 2010.
- What is the lowest food production index recorded in Zambia?
- The lowest recorded value was 31.02 gross, 1999-2001 = 100 in 1963.
- How does Zambia rank for food production index?
- Zambia ranks 6th out of 53 countries with data for 2011.
- Is food production index rising or falling in Zambia?
- Over the last ten years it is up 68.4%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Zambia data come from?
- The figures come from Food and Agriculture Organization, electronic files and web site, published as part of Food production index (gross, 1999-2001 = 100). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 51 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
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.