ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Optimizing profitability in dual-purpose Assaf sheep farms: management effects under natural and artificial suckling in Palestine.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the productive, reproductive and economic performance of Assaf sheep farms operating in arid Mediterranean conditions and how farm location, suckling practice (natural or artificial) and lamb marketing strategy (weaning or fattening) influence net revenue. Data from 520 ewes on farms located in the governorates of Jenin, Jericho, Tubas and Tulkarm were analysed in this study. A cross-sectional survey was carried out on the ewes, with standardized annual data collected for each ewe, including production traits, input costs and revenues, using farm records and structured questionnaires. Artificial suckling reduced lamb mortality compared with natural suckling (0.02% versus 0.08%, P < 0.05). Farms using artificial suckling also achieved higher annual prolificacy, producing 2.21 lambs per ewe per year compared with 2.06 in naturally suckled flocks. Feed constituted the major production expense and accounted for 73% of total costs. The highest net revenue was obtained on farms that combined artificial suckling with fattening of lambs, reaching 828USD per ewe per year. Farm location had a significant effect on profitability (P < 0.01), driven mainly by differences in feed costs and access to local markets. These results indicate that targeted management interventions can substantially improve productivity and farm income in dual-purpose sheep systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41706397What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.