ArticleOpen veterinary journal2026
The effect of housing system (semi-closed barn and closed barn) on some productive and carcass traits of Awassi male lambs.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sheep are a main source for meat, and animal housing is to protect them from harsh environmental conditions and to provide an environment suitable for animal comfort and in an economical manner as possible. Aim: The aim of this experiment was to compare the effect of two types of housing systems (semi-closed barn and closed barn) on some productive and carcass traits of Awassi male lambs. Methods: Two groups of Awassi lambs totaling forty weaned male lambs ranging in age from 4 to 6 months were divided into two types of barns: the first was housed in a semi-open barn, and the second in a closed barn with 20 lambs for each group. In order to find an effect between the two groups and to find out the significance of these differences, the obtained data were analyzed using the Results: No significant differences were observed between the two groups in productive traits and carcass, such as final weight, weight gain, feed conversion efficiency, feed intake, carcass weight, dressing percentage, and carcass residues from the head, feet, and skin. There were also no big differences in the viscera of the carcass, such as the lungs, heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, intestines, the weight of the full and empty rumen, or the weights of different fats, such as buttocks, abdomen, kidney, and heart fat. There were also no big differences in the area of the eye muscle or the thickness of the subcutaneous fat, or in the major and minor cuts. Moreover, the proportions of muscle, fat, and bone remained consistent. The net second transaction exhibits an arithmetic advantage. Conclusion: There was an arithmetic increase in favor of the first treatment, and this may be due to the increase in feed intake in the lambs of the semi-open pens compared to the closed ones. In addition to the availability of ideal conditions for the lambs, including fresh air and better oxygen availability, air movement inside the barn, and lower temperatures compared to a closed barn, thermal stress reduces weight gain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.