Epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India

Epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India Omer Mohi U Din Sofi, Rajesh godara, R. Katoch, A. Yadav, Kaifa Nazim, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Amphistomosis in sheep (n=1210) was examined from November 2020 to October 2021 from north-western Himalayan region of India. This study took into consideration the seasonal prevalence, the intensity of infection and the economic impact of amphistomosis on production parameters of sheep. The overall prevalence was recorded to be 36.3%. Although infection encountered throughout the year, the significantly ( p <0.05) higher prevalence was found in monsoon (49.8%) and post-monsoon (42.7%) seasons than winter (31.4%) and summer (25.9%) seasons. Significantly ( p <0.05) higher mean egg output (46.5±0.42) was observed in monsoon season followed by summer (27.6±0.41), post-monsoon (22.0 ± 0.17) and winter (12.7±0.42) seasons. Animals aged 6 months to 1 year had significantly higher ( p <0.05) prevalence (40.4%) than animals above 1 year (31.6%) and below 6 months (16.9%) of age groups. The total annual economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 462384.0 (US $6188.2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum. Among the various production parameters, reduced body weight contributed the highest in economic loss (95.5%) followed by reduced birth weight of lambs (3.9%) and the least by reduced wool yield (0.6%). Evaluation of the total annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 107745.0 (US $1441.9) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 981.0 per animal per annum. Among the various production parameters, increased body weight contributed the highest in economic recovery (90.1%) followed by increased birth weight of lambs (8.3%) and the least by increased wool yield (1.6%). Amphistomosis Economic impact Epidemiology Himalayan region Sheep Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction In north-western Himalayas (India), small ruminant rearing is the sole source of livelihood for pastoral nomadic tribes (Khajuria et al. 2013 ). The survival and productivity of these small ruminants are affected by various parasitic diseases. The hot and humid sub-tropical environmental conditions of the region are favourable for the snail-borne helminthic infections (Godara et al. 2014 ). Among these, immature amphistomosis is responsible for high mortality (up to 75.0 to 80.0%) in small ruminants (Dutt 1980 ; Choudhury 1994 ; Agrawal 2003 ), thereby causing huge economic losses to Bakarwal community of the region. The parasitic infections cause significant economic losses in small ruminants by decreased weight gain and production (Gal 1981 ; Fernández-Abella et al. 2006 ; Rinaldi et al. 2007 ; Sechi et al. 2010 ). There have been some reports of parasite infestation in ruminants having an economic impact around the world (Ngategize et al. 1993 ; Kaplan 2001 ; Charlier et al. 2014 ; Mavrot et al. 2015 ; Rashid et al. 2019 ; Hernández-Russo 2021). However, very narrow research has been done regarding assessment of economic losses due to parasitic infections in ruminants in India (Jas et al. 2007 ; Ilangopathy et al. 2019 ), and particularly from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Yadav et al. 2012 ). Therefore, the present study was conducted to determine the epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas (India) to fill this gap at small scale and to provide a platform to extend this work. Materials And Methods Study area The study was propelled in sheep of north-western Himalayan region of India located between latitudes 33.27° N and longitudes 75.34° E. The study area is located about 332 m above sea level (ASL) and having a subtropical climate. The area is divided into four seasons; summer (March to June), monsoon (July to September), post-monsoon (October to November) and winter (December to February). Sample collection and processing Per rectal faecal samples were collected randomly in polybags from sheep (n = 1210) of Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir (India) during November 2020 to October 2021. The polybags were labelled as per the age of animal (˂6 months, 6 months to 1 year and > 1 year). The age was determined by questioning the farmers or by dentition of animal (Rahman and Hossain 1997 ). The collected faecal samples were examined using sedimentation technique (Soulsby 1982 ). Faecal egg counts per gram (EPG) were determined following the Modified Stoll's egg counting technique (Soulsby 1982 ). Estimation of economic loss due to amphistomosis A random flock of sheep was selected from Samba district of Jammu region (India) to estimate the economic losses due to amphistomosis. To determine the prevalence of amphistomosis and to know its impact on production parameters, the sampling and production parameters of only adult sheep (3.5 to 4 years age) was considered, as at this age group sheep are at best and comparable production level. The flock size of considered age group was 384 (rams:152, ewes:232). The faecal samples of whole flock were examined to check the prevalence of any secondary parasitic infection. To nullify the effect of gastrointestinal nematode infections on the production, all the animals were treated with ivermectin (Virbac Animal Health Ltd., India) @ 0.2 mg per kg body weight subcutaneously during the months of October 2020, March and July 2021. The prevalence of amphistomosis in rams and ewes was determined by sedimentation technique (Soulsby 1982 ). To estimate the economic loss, various production parameters were evaluated during study viz. average body weight, average wool yield, reproductive potential of ewes and average birth weight of lambs. Economic impact due to body weight The average body weight of both infected and non-infected animals (n = 384) was recorded at the start of study period. Proportion of infection for amphistomosis was also recorded. To estimate the economic loss due to reduced body weight, the formula devised by Yadav et al. ( 2012 ) was used with some modifications as: B L = P I × (B I – B N ) × F S × V LW × (1 + D) Where, B L : Economic loss due to reduced body weight gain P I : Proportion of infection B I : Average body weight of infected B N : Average body weight of non-infected F S : Flock size of selected age group for study V LW : Price in rupees of live weight of sheep per kilogram D: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis Economic impact due to wool yield The average wool yield of both infected and non-infected animals (n = 384) was recorded during the study period. The shearing was done twice (April and September 2021) during the study period. The total average wool yield for whole year was calculated for both infected and non-infected animals. Economic loss due to decreased wool yield was estimated using formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) with some modifications as: W L = P I × (W I – W N ) × F S × V W × (1 + D) Where, W L : Economic loss due to reduced body weight gain P I : Proportion of infection W I : Average wool yield of infected W N : Average wool yield of non-infected F S : Flock size of selected age group for study V W : Price in rupees of wool per kilogram D: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis Economic impact due to reproductive potential of ewes and birth weight of lambs The average reproductive potential of infected and non-infected ewes (n = 232) and the average birth weight of lambs born from respective group of ewes was recorded. The average reproductive potential of ewes was estimated by calculating the average number of lambs born from particular group of ewes during 1 year study period. The economic loss due to reduced reproductive potential of ewes and reduced birth weight of lambs was calculated using formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) with some modifications as: LR L = P IE × [(R.P I – R.P N ) × (B LIE –B LNE )] × F SE × V LW × (1 + D E ) Where, LR L : Economic loss due to decreased reproductive potential and reduced birth weight of lambs P IE : Proportion of infected ewes R.P I : Average reproductive potential of infected ewes R.P N : Average reproductive potential of non-infected ewes BL IE : Birth weight of lambs born from infected ewes BL INE : Birth weight of lambs born from non-infected ewes F SE : Flock size of ewes V W : Price in rupees of live weight of sheep per kilogram D E : Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis in ewes The total economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep was calculated by sum of individual losses from all production parameters using formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) as: Total loss = (B L + W L + LR L ) Estimation of economic growth due to control of amphistomosis Two flocks of sheep (control and treated) were compared from Samba district of Jammu region (India) to estimate the economic growth due to sustainable control of amphistomosis. To check the prevalence of amphistomosis and to know its impact on production parameters, the sampling and production parameters of only adult sheep (3.5 to 4 years age) were considered, as at this age group, sheep are at best and comparable production level. The flock size of considered age group was 120 (rams:42, ewes:78) for both groups. The faecal samples of both flocks were examined to check the prevalence of any secondary parasitic infection. To nullify the effect of gastrointestinal nematode infections on the production, all animals of both groups were treated with ivermectin (Virbac Animal Health Ltd., India) @ 0.2 mg per kg body weight subcutaneously during the months of October 2020, March and July 2021. The prevalence of amphistomosis in rams and ewes was determined by sedimentation technique (Soulsby 1982 ). The animals in treated group were provided oxyclozanide (Neozide bolus, Intas Pharmaceuticals, India) @ of 15 mg/kg body weight at three months interval with the estimated treatment cost of rupees 40.0 per animal per year. The faecal samples of control group were examined at regular intervals to check the persistence of amphistome infection and same procedure was applied to treated group to check the sustainable control of amphistomosis. To estimate the economic growth, various production parameters were evaluated for both the groups during study viz. average body weight, average wool yield, reproductive potential of ewes and average birth weight of lambs. Economic growth due to body weight The average body weight of both control (n = 120) and treated animals (n = 120) was recorded at the end of study period. Proportion of infection for amphistomosis in both groups was also recorded. The formula devised by Yadav et al. ( 2012 ) was modified to estimate the economic growth due to body weight gain in treated flock as: B G = [(P TN1 – P CN1 ) × [((B TN1 – B CN1 )] × F S × V LW × (1 –D) Where, B G : Economic growth due to body weight gain P TN1 : Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in treated group B TN1 : Average body weight after 1 year in treated group P CN1 : Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in control group B CN1 : Average body weight after 1 year in control group F S : Flock size of selected age group for study V LW : Price in rupees of live per kilogram D: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis Economic growth due to wool yield The average wool yield of both control (n = 120) and treated animals (n = 120) was recorded during the study period. The shearing was done twice in a year (April and September 2021) during study period. The total average wool yield for whole year was calculated for both control and treated groups. The formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) was modified to estimate the economic growth due to increase in wool yield in treated flock, as: W G = [(P TN1 – P CN1 ) × (W TN1 – W CN1 )] × F S × V LW × (1 –D) Where, W G : Economic growth due to increase in wool yield P TN1 : Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in treated group W TN1 : Average wool yield after 1 year in treated group P CN1 : Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in control group W CN1 : Average body weight after 1 year in control group F S : Flock size of selected age group for study V W : Price in rupees of wool of sheep per kilogram D: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis Economic growth due to reproductive potential of ewes and birth weight of lambs The average reproductive potential of control (n = 78) and treated ewes (n = 78) and the average birth weight of lambs born from respective group of ewes was recorded. Average reproductive potential of ewes was estimated by calculating the average number of lambs born from particular group of ewes during 1 year study period. Formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) was modified to calculate the economic growth due to increased reproductive potential of ewes and increased birth weight of lambs as: LR G = [ (P ETN1 – P ECN1 ) × (R.P TE1 – R.P CE1 ) × (B LTE1 – B LCE1 )] × F SE × V LW × (1 –D E ) Where, LR G : Economic growth due to increased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs P TEN1 : Proportion of uninfected ewes after 1 year in treated group B LTE1 : Average birth weight of lambs born from ewes in treated group P CEN1 : Proportion of uninfected ewes after 1 year in control group B LCE1 : Average body weight of lambs born from ewes in control group R.P CNE1 : Reproductive potential of uninfected ewes in control group R.P TNE1 : Reproductive potential of ewes in treated group F SE : Flock size of ewes V LW : Price in rupees of live per kilogram D E : Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis in ewes The total economic growth due to sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep was calculated by sum of growth from all production parameters and subtracting the cost of treatment for whole flock per annum using formula devised by Singh et al. ( 2014 ) with modifications as: Total gain = (B G + W G + LR G ) – treatment cost in rupees (for treated flock size) Statistical analysis The coprological prevalence data were compared by chi-square test. One way ANOVA (SPSS 16.0) was used to compare mean egg counts (total number of fluke eggs divided by total number of animals) were compared by one way ANOVA (SPSS 16.0). The body weight, birth weight, wool yield and reproductive potential of animals in different groups were compared by using student’s t -test. Proportion of infected and non-infected was compared by using chi-square (χ2) test. The significantly different ( p < 0.05) means were ranked using Duncan’s multiple range test (Duncan 1955 ). Results Prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep Overall prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep was recorded to be 36.3% (440/1210) (Table 1). Among seasons, a significantly ( p <0.05) higher prevalence was recorded during monsoon (49.8%) and post-monsoon (42.7%) seasons in comparison to winter (31.4%) and summer (25.9%) seasons. Significantly ( p <0.05) higher mean egg output (46.5±0.42) was observed in monsoon season followed by summer (27.6±0.41), post-monsoon (22.0 ± 0.17) and winter seasons (12.7±0.42). The monthwise prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep is presented in Fig. 1. Among the different age groups of sheep examined, significantly higher ( p <0.05) prevalence was recorded in 6 months to 1 year of age group (40.4%) followed by above 1 year of age (31.6%) and the least in below 6 months of age (16.9%) groups. Economic losses due to amphistomosis in sheep Loss due to decreased body weight Among the study group for average body weight parameter (n=384), the prevalence of amphistomosis was recorded as 51.6% (Table 2). The average body weight of non-infected group (41.8 kg) was significantly (p< 0.05) higher than infected group (32.6 kg) (Table 2). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from sheep infected with amphistomosis was found to be rupees 441600.0 for the study flock (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1150.0 at an average per animal per annum. Loss due to decreased wool yield The flock which evaluated for body weight, was also evaluated for average wool loss. The average wool yield of non-infected group (1.2 kg) was significantly (p< 0.05) higher than infected group (0.8 kg) (Table 2). Taking Rs. 35.0 per kg as raw wool price of sheep as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from sheep infected with amphistomosis due to reduced wool yield was found to be rupees 2688.0 for the study flock (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 7.0 at an average per animal per annum. Loss due to decreased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs The ewes were considered (n=232) to evaluate reproductive potential and the lambs born from these ewes during study period were evaluated for average birth weight. The prevalence of amphistomosis in ewes was recorded as 78.4% (Table 2). The average reproductive potential of non-infected ewes (1.6) was significantly (p< 0.05) higher than infected ewes (1.1) (Table 2). The average birth weight of lambs born from non-infected ewes (4.2 kg) was also significantly (p< 0.05) higher than lambs born from infected ewes (3.4 kg) (Table 2). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from ewes due to reduced reproductive potential and less birth weight of lambs was found to be rupees 18096.0 for the study flock of ewes (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 78.0 at an average per ewe per annum. Total economic loss From the calculation, the total annual economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 462384.0 (US $6188.2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum. No mortality was recorded during the study period among the survey flock (D= 0). Economic growth due to control of amphistomosis Profit due to increased body weight: The average body weight of adults was recorded for control (n=120) and treated (n=120). At day 0 of treatment, prevalence of amphistomosis and average body weight exhibited no significant difference between control and treated groups. After 1 year, the prevalence of amphistomosis was recorded as 72.5% and 9.2% in control and treated animals, respectively (Table 3). The average body weight of treated group after 1 year (48.3 kg) was significantly (p<0.05) higher than control group (43.4 kg) (Table 3). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic growth from sheep by sustainable control of amphistomosis due to increased body weight gain was found to be rupees 101430.0 for the study flock (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 846.0 at an average per animal per annum. Profit due to increased wool yield The flock as evaluated for weight, was also evaluated for average wool gain. At day 0 of treatment, average wool yield revealed no significant difference between control and treated groups. The average wool yield of treated group (1.5 kg) was significantly (p< 0.05) higher than control group (0.82 kg) after 1 year of treatment (Table 3). Taking rupees 35.0 as raw wool price of sheep per kg as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic recovery from sheep by sustainable control of amphistomosis due to increased wool yield was found to be rupees 1806.0 for the study flock (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 15.0 at an average per animal per annum. Profit due to increased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs The ewes (n=232) were evaluated for reproductive potential and the lambs born from these ewes during study period were evaluated for average birth weight. At day 0 of treatment, prevalence revealed no significant difference (p>0.05) between control and treated groups. The prevalence of amphistomosis in ewes was recorded as 78.4% and 16.1% in control and treated groups, respectively after 1 year (Table 3). The average reproductive potential of treated ewes (1.8) was significantly (p<0.05) higher than control ewes (1.1) (Table 3). The average birth weight of lambs born from treated ewes (4.6 kg) was also significantly (p<0.05) higher than lambs born from control ewes (3.5 kg) (Table 3). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic recovery from ewes due to increased reproductive potential and increased birth weight of lambs was found to be rupees 9309.0 for the study flock of ewes (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 120.0 at an average per ewe per annum. Total economic growth: Evaluation of the total annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 107745.0 (US $1441.9) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 981.0 per animal per annum. The treatment cost @ rupees 40.0 per animal was also subtracted from the total economic recovery. No mortality was recorded during the study period among the survey flock (D=0). The comparison of total economic loss and recovery is shown in Fig. 2. Discussion Although amphistomosis encountered throughout the year, a significant difference ( p < 0.05) was recorded on Chi-square analysis in the seasonal prevalence of amphistomosis. The monthwise prevalence (Fig. 1 ) provided a better picture of disease distribution during the study period. Due to enhancement of temperature during late winter months, the over wintered eggs and the eggs deposited in the pasture during this period hatch and miracidia enter into the snail intermediate host. The infective stage from snail passes onto the herbage during late summer resulted into the sudden rise in the prevalence of amphistomosis during monsoon months. The new crop of snails produced at the start of rainy season further increase the number of cercariae on the pasture leads to gradual build-up of fluke population and higher egg output during monsoon season and losses are continue throughout the post-monsoon and early winter months (Garg et al. 2009 ; Khajuria et al. 2012 ; Godara et al. 2014 ). Furthermore, the increase in egg counts was noticed from late summer months which attained peak during rainy season and decreased sharply during post-monsoon and winter seasons as observed herein. The low infection rate of animals < 6 months can be attributed to maternal immunity attained by very young animals. After weaning, the growing animals (6 month to 1 year ) when go for their first grazing they pick up higher doses of infective stage as their innate immunity is on reducing side, whereas acquired immunity is in starting phase. The lower infection rate in older animals could be the result of previous exposure which led to immunity and moderating the intensity of re-infection (Horak 1971 ; Pfukenyi et al. 2005 ). The gastrointestinal helminthic infections, both clinical and subclinical, generate significant economic losses in sheep production (Gal 1981 ). The main benefit of economic analysis of parasite control measures is that it gives a foundation for making rational decisions about the best course of action to pursue in various situations. It also increases one's trust in the precision with which various control procedures have been ranked in a study. In the current study, the total economic loss caused by amphistomosis was calculated as rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum and by sustainable control of amphistomosis, we were able to recover rupees 981.0 per animal per annum (Fig. 2 ). Among the various production parameters, the reduced body weight contributed the highest in economic loss (95.5%) followed by reduced birth weight of lambs (3.9%) and the least by reduced wool yield (0.6%), whereas in annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock, the increased body weight contributed the highest in economic recovery (90.1%) followed by increased birth weight of lambs (8.3%) and the least by increased wool yield (1.6%). Jas et al. (2009) in a field investigation revealed that the anthelmintic therapy of sheep improved meat production by suppressing gastrointestinal helminthic infections. During one year study period, they found the average loss of body weight due to gastrointestinal nematodosis as 3.23 kg, with a net per capita loss of 1.61 kg meat output in the infected group. In small ruminants, the helminthic infections cause economic losses mostly due to lower weight gain (Jas et al. 2007 ) as observed herein. Previously, Yadav et al. ( 2012 ) had estimated economic losses of rupees 73.26 million per year due to Przhevalskiana silenus (goat warble fly) infestation in goats of Jammu region (India), with lower growth alone accounting for 49.0% of the total losses. In addition, meat output, wool production, sperm concentration, and ovulation rate have all been demonstrated to be affected by gastrointestinal helminths (Fernández-Abella et al. 2006 ). Further, lamb survival, birth weight and daily gain are all poorer in infected ewes. Furthermore, the parasitized sheep produce less milk (Familton et al. 1995 ) and have decreased protein concentrations, fat, and lactose in their milk (Rinaldi et al. 2007 ; Sechi et al. 2010 ). Earlier, Jas et al. ( 2007 ) did an economic loss study in goats that were kept as anthelmintic treated and infected, with economic losses of rupees 158.1 and 167.2, respectively. Although the consequences of parasitism on output have been acknowledged (Charlier et al. 2014 ), there is still a need to quantify these losses as sheep are an important source of revenue in many nations (Morris 2009 ). Statements And Declarations Funding: The financial support was provided by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) under grant number JKRO/FSDD/SKUAST-J/DPR/1209/2019-20. The author R. Katoch has received research support from NABARD. The authors declare that no funds, grant or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Conflicts of interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethics approval: Not applicable. Consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Availability of data and materials: The data sets generated during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code availability: Not applicable. Author contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Omer Mohi-U-Din Sofi, R. Godara, Anish Yadav, Kaifa Nazim and D. Chakraborty. The grant was brought by R. Katoch. The first draft of the manuscript was written by R. Godara. All authors read and approved final manuscript. References Agrawal, M.C., 2003. Epidemiology of fluke infections. In: Sood, M.L. (ed.) Helminthology in India, 1st edn., International Book Distributors, Dehradun, India, pp. 511–542. Charlier, J., van der Voort, M., Kenyon, F., Skuce, P. and Vercruysse, J., 2014. Chasing helminths and their economic impact on farmed ruminants. Trends in Parasitology, 30, 361–367. Choudhury, N., 1994. Helminths of domesticated animal in Indian subcontinent. In: Chowdhury, N. and Tada, I. (eds.) Helminthology, 1st edn., Narosa, New, Delhi, pp. 73–120. Duncan, B.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple ‘F’ test: Biometrics, 11, 1. Dutt, S.C., 1980. Paramphistomes and paramphistomiasis of domestic ruminants in India. Monograph, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, pp. 1–162. Familton, A., Mcanulti, R., Thompson, K and Sedcole, J., 1995. The effect of anthelmintic treatment of ewes during pregnancy. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 55, 211–213. Fernández-Abella, D., Hernández-Russo, Z. and Villegas, N., 2006. Effect of gastrointestinal nematodes on ovulation rate of merino Booroola heterozygote ewes (FecB Fec+). Animal Research, 55(6), 545–550. Gal, C., 1981. Goat Production. Academic Press, London/New York, pp. 619. Garg, Rajat, Yadav, C.L., Kumar, R.R., Banerjee, P.S., Vatsya, S. and Godara, R., 2009. The epidemiology of fasciolosis in ruminants in different geo-climatic regions of north India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41, 1695–1700. Godara, R., Katoch, R., Yadav, A. and Rastogi, A., 2014. Epidemiology of paramphistomosis in sheep and goats in Jammu, India. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 38, 423–428. Hernández-Russo, Z., Irabuena, O., Sterla, S. and Fernández Abella, D., 2021. Effect of gastrointestinal nematodes on reproduction and lamb growth in Australian merino sheep. Journal of Veterinary Science and Research, 6(1), 204. Horak, I.C., 1971. Paramphistomiasis of domestic ruminants. Advances in Parasitology, 9, 3–72. Ilangopathy, M., Palavesam, A., Amaresan, S.S. and Muthusamy, R., 2019. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodes on meat production from sheep. International Journal of Livestock Research, 9, 44–48. Jas, R. and Ghosh, J.D., 2009. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodosis in sheep: Enhanced meat production by anthelmintic treatment, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 79, 761–763. Jas, R., Datta, S., and Ghosh, J.D., 2007. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodosis in goat on meat production, Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 21, 109–112. Kaplan, R.M., 2001. Fasciola hepatica : a review of the economic impact in cattle and considerations for control. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2(1), 40–50. Khajuria, J.K., Katoch, R., Yadav, Anish, Godara, R. and Singh, A., 2012. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in small ruminants of low altitude subtropical zone of Jammu province. Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 26(2), 151–155. Khajuria, J.K., Katoch, R., Yadav, A., Godara, R., Gupta, S.K. and Singh, A., 2013. Seasonal prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in sheep and goats of middle agro-climatic zone of Jammu province. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 37, 21–25. Mavrot, F., Hertzberg, H. and Torgerson, P., 2015. Effect of gastro-intestinal nematode infection on sheep performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasites and Vectors, 8(1), 1–11. Morris, S.T., 2009. Economics of sheep production. Small Ruminant Research, 86, 59–62. Ngategize, P.K., Bekele, T. and Tilahun, G., 1993. Financial losses caused by ovine fasciolosis in the Ethiopian highlands. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 25(3), 155–161. Pfukenyi, D.M., Mukaratirwa, S., Willingham, A.L. and Monrad, J., 2005. Epidemiological studies of amphistome infections in cattle in the Highveld and Lowveld communal grazing areas of Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 72, 67–86. Rahman, M.A. and Hossain, W.I.M.A., 1997 Introductory Animal Hygiene and Management, 1st Edn., Department of Microbiology and Hygiene, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, pp. 7–34. Rashid, M., Rashid, M. I., Akbar, H., Ahmad, L., Hassan, M. A., Ashraf, K. and Gharbi, M., 2019. A systematic review on modelling approaches for economic losses studies caused by parasites and their associated diseases in cattle. Parasitology, 146(2), 129–141. Rinaldi, L., Veneziano, V. and Cringoli, G., 2007. Dairy goat production and the importance of gastrointestinal strongly parasitism. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 101(8), 745–746. Sechi, S., Giobbe, M., Sanna, G., Casu, S. and Carta, A., 2010. Effects of anthelmintic treatment on milk production in Sarda dairy ewes naturally infected by gastrointestinal nematodes. Small Ruminant Research, 88(2), 145–150. Singh, B., Bardhan, D., Verma, M. R., Prasad, S. and Sinha, D.K., 2014. Estimation of economic losses due to Peste de Petits Ruminants in small ruminants in India. Veterinary World, 7(4), 194–199. Soulsby, E.J.L., 1982. Helminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals , 7th edn., ELBS and Bailliere Tindall, London, UK, pp. 707–735. Yadav, A., Katoch, R., Khajuria, J.K., Katoch, M. and Rastogi, A., 2012. Economic impact of Przhevalskiana silenus infestation in native goats of Northern India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44, 581–587. Tables Table 1 Seasonal prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India ___________________________________________________________________________ Season Examined Infected (%) Mean egg count (±SEM) ___________________________________________________________________________ Winter 290 91 (31.4) b 12.7 ± 0.42 p Summer 390 101 (25.9) a 27.6 ± 0.41 q Monsoon 305 152 (49.8) c 46.5 ± 0.42 s Post-monsoon 225 96 (42.7) c 22.0 ± 0.17 r _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Values with different superscripts in a column differ significantly at significance level of 5%. Table 2 Economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India Economic parameters (comparable age group) Infected (I) Non-infected (N) Proportion infected (P I ) Flock size (F S ) Value (Rs.) (V) Loss due to each parameter (rupees) Average adult body weight per animal (kg) (B) 32.6 a ±0.67 41.8 b ±0.91 0.52 384 250 441600 Average wool yield per animal (kg) (W) 0.8 p ± 0.01 1.2 q ± 0.02 0.52 384 35 2688 Reproductive potential (lambs/year/ewe) (R.P) 1.1 x ± 0.04 1.6 y ±0.03 0.78 232 - - Average birth weight of lambs born from ewes(kg) (B) 3.4 t ±0.06 4.2 u ±0.07 - - 250 18096 Total - - - 384 - 462384 Different superscripts indicate significant difference (p< 0.05) between infected and non-infected with parameters of average body weight (a, b), average wool yield (p, q), reproductive potential (x, y) and average birth weight of lambs (t, u) Table 3 Economic growth and stabilization by altering production parameters of sheep through sustainable control of amphistomosis Economic parameters (comparable age group) Groups Flock size (F S ) (equal for both groups) Value (Rs.) (V) Gain due to each parameter (rupees) Control Treated 0 day 1 year Proportion non infected (0 day) Proportion non infected (P CN1 ) 0 day 1 year Proportion non infected (0 day) Proportion non infected (P TN1 ) Average adult body weight per animal (kg) (B) 34.8 a ±5.7 43.4 B ±7.2 0.31 g 0.28 g 33.4 a ±5.6 48.3 A ±8.1 0.29 G 0.91 H 120 250 101430 Average wool yield per animal (kg) (W) 0.93 p ±0.2 0.82 E ±0.1 0.31 j 0.28 j 1.1 p ±0.2 1.5 D ±0.3 0.29 J 0.91 K 120 35 1806 Reproductive potential(lambs/year/ewe) (R.P) 1.3 x ±0.02 1.1 N ±0.01 0.26 z 0.22 z 1.2 x ±0.03 1.8 M ±0.05 0.24 Y 0.84 Z 78 - - Average birth weight of lambs born from ewes(kg) (B) 3.8 t ±0.05 3.5 R ±0.02 - - 3.7 t ±0.02 4.6 Q ±0.01 - - - 250 9309 Total - - - - - - - - 120 - 112545 Treatment cost (rupees) - - - - - - - - 120 40/animal 4800 Grand total - - - - - - - - - - 107745 Different superscripts indicate significant difference (p< 0.05) between control and treated groups at respective time periods with parameters of average body weight (a, b) at 0 day and (p, q) at 1 year, average wool yield (p, q) at 0 day and (D, E) at 1 year, reproductive potential (x, y) at 0 day and (M, N) at 1 year, average birth weight of lambs (t, u) at 0 day and (Q, R) at 1 year. Proportion of non-infected was also compared within same group at 0 day and after 1 year with control (g,h; j,k; y,z) and treated (G,H; J,K; Y,Z) in respective production parameters Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-1783347","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":122512745,"identity":"2a248571-9e11-4243-965b-ee5b938516c2","order_by":0,"name":"Omer Mohi U Din Sofi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SKUAST Jammu: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omer","middleName":"Mohi U Din","lastName":"Sofi","suffix":""},{"id":122512746,"identity":"fa7c5f7e-b058-4688-8e1d-628b51da5f30","order_by":1,"name":"Rajesh godara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"FVSc \u0026 AH, SKUAST-Jammu","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rajesh","middleName":"","lastName":"godara","suffix":""},{"id":122512747,"identity":"69ae72f0-9a1c-4878-907e-f51425af9dce","order_by":2,"name":"R. Katoch","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SKUAST Jammu: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.","middleName":"","lastName":"Katoch","suffix":""},{"id":122512748,"identity":"40b9b6a0-5e5f-47ca-93c9-8a969d68ada5","order_by":3,"name":"A. Yadav","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SKUAST Jammu: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"A.","middleName":"","lastName":"Yadav","suffix":""},{"id":122512750,"identity":"5174ccf3-2ed7-4516-bafa-b47af76ba3b9","order_by":4,"name":"Kaifa Nazim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SKUAST Jammu: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kaifa","middleName":"","lastName":"Nazim","suffix":""},{"id":122512751,"identity":"687f3d02-ccfb-42e1-a269-6c882aa4d5a9","order_by":5,"name":"D. Chakraborty","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SKUAST Jammu: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"D.","middleName":"","lastName":"Chakraborty","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-06-22 07:26:52","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":24159811,"identity":"fe644abb-c907-4d24-89fe-c401a41cd974","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-21 17:53:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40059,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMonthwise prevalence (%) of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1783347/v1/9c80477a33a9c9e57c33462c.png"},{"id":24160176,"identity":"15e5b884-9dfb-4066-b047-c932d2b3d43d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-21 17:58:40","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75734,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of economic loss and recovery per animal per annum\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1783347/v1/fa2200cd4dbecae5eed44f49.png"},{"id":24500144,"identity":"b7207e4d-d966-433b-b6f9-29ddd0d0dccd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-07-29 11:44:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":528191,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1783347/v1/3ce0d6f2-460b-43a5-875b-66034f583d4e.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn north-western Himalayas (India), small ruminant rearing is the sole source of livelihood for pastoral nomadic tribes (Khajuria et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The survival and productivity of these small ruminants are affected by various parasitic diseases. The hot and humid sub-tropical environmental conditions of the region are favourable for the snail-borne helminthic infections (Godara et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Among these, immature amphistomosis is responsible for high mortality (up to 75.0 to 80.0%) in small ruminants (Dutt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e; Choudhury \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Agrawal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), thereby causing huge economic losses to Bakarwal community of the region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe parasitic infections cause significant economic losses in small ruminants by decreased weight gain and production (Gal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Abella et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Rinaldi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Sechi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). There have been some reports of parasite infestation in ruminants having an economic impact around the world (Ngategize et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Kaplan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Charlier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Mavrot et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Rashid et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Russo 2021). However, very narrow research has been done regarding assessment of economic losses due to parasitic infections in ruminants in India (Jas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Ilangopathy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and particularly from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Yadav et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the present study was conducted to determine the epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas (India) to fill this gap at small scale and to provide a platform to extend this work.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials And Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStudy area\u003c/b\u003e The study was propelled in sheep of north-western Himalayan region of India located between latitudes 33.27\u0026deg; N and longitudes 75.34\u0026deg; E. The study area is located about 332 m above sea level (ASL) and having a subtropical climate. The area is divided into four seasons; summer (March to June), monsoon (July to September), post-monsoon (October to November) and winter (December to February).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSample collection and processing\u003c/b\u003e Per rectal faecal samples were collected randomly in polybags from sheep (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1210) of Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir (India) during November 2020 to October 2021. The polybags were labelled as per the age of animal (˂6 months, 6 months to 1 year and \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 year). The age was determined by questioning the farmers or by dentition of animal (Rahman and Hossain \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). The collected faecal samples were examined using sedimentation technique (Soulsby \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). Faecal egg counts per gram (EPG) were determined following the Modified Stoll's egg counting technique (Soulsby \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e).\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEstimation of economic loss due to amphistomosis\u003c/b\u003e A random flock of sheep was selected from Samba district of Jammu region (India) to estimate the economic losses due to amphistomosis. To determine the prevalence of amphistomosis and to know its impact on production parameters, the sampling and production parameters of only adult sheep (3.5 to 4 years age) was considered, as at this age group sheep are at best and comparable production level. The flock size of considered age group was 384 (rams:152, ewes:232). The faecal samples of whole flock were examined to check the prevalence of any secondary parasitic infection. To nullify the effect of gastrointestinal nematode infections on the production, all the animals were treated with ivermectin (Virbac Animal Health Ltd., India) @ 0.2 mg per kg body weight subcutaneously during the months of October 2020, March and July 2021. The prevalence of amphistomosis in rams and ewes was determined by sedimentation technique (Soulsby \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo estimate the economic loss, various production parameters were evaluated during study viz. average body weight, average wool yield, reproductive potential of ewes and average birth weight of lambs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic impact due to body weight\u003c/b\u003e The average body weight of both infected and non-infected animals (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;384) was recorded at the start of study period. Proportion of infection for amphistomosis was also recorded. To estimate the economic loss due to reduced body weight, the formula devised by Yadav et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) was used with some modifications as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e P\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026times; (B\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026ndash; B\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e) \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;D)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic loss due to reduced body weight gain\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of infection\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight of infected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight of non-infected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of selected age group for study\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of live weight of sheep per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic impact due to wool yield\u003c/b\u003e The average wool yield of both infected and non-infected animals (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;384) was recorded during the study period. The shearing was done twice (April and September 2021) during the study period. The total average wool yield for whole year was calculated for both infected and non-infected animals. Economic loss due to decreased wool yield was estimated using formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) with some modifications as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e P\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026times; (W\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; W\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e) \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;D)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic loss due to reduced body weight gain\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of infection\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e: Average wool yield of infected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e: Average wool yield of non-infected\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of selected age group for study\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of wool per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic impact due to reproductive potential of ewes and birth weight of lambs\u003c/b\u003e The average reproductive potential of infected and non-infected ewes (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;232) and the average birth weight of lambs born from respective group of ewes was recorded. The average reproductive potential of ewes was estimated by calculating the average number of lambs born from particular group of ewes during 1 year study period. The economic loss due to reduced reproductive potential of ewes and reduced birth weight of lambs was calculated using formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) with some modifications as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLR\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e P\u003csub\u003eIE\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026times; [(R.P\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; R.P\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e) \u0026times; (B\u003csub\u003eLIE\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash;B\u003csub\u003eLNE\u003c/sub\u003e)] \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eSE\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;D\u003csub\u003eE\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLR\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic loss due to decreased reproductive potential and reduced birth weight of lambs\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eIE\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of infected ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eR.P\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e: Average reproductive potential of infected ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eR.P\u003csub\u003eN\u003c/sub\u003e: Average reproductive potential of non-infected ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBL\u003csub\u003eIE\u003c/sub\u003e: Birth weight of lambs born from infected ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBL\u003csub\u003eINE\u003c/sub\u003e: Birth weight of lambs born from non-infected ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eSE\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of live weight of sheep per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003csub\u003eE\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis in ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep was calculated by sum of individual losses from all production parameters using formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal loss = (B\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e + W\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e + LR\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEstimation of economic growth due to control of amphistomosis\u003c/b\u003e Two flocks of sheep (control and treated) were compared from Samba district of Jammu region (India) to estimate the economic growth due to sustainable control of amphistomosis. To check the prevalence of amphistomosis and to know its impact on production parameters, the sampling and production parameters of only adult sheep (3.5 to 4 years age) were considered, as at this age group, sheep are at best and comparable production level. The flock size of considered age group was 120 (rams:42, ewes:78) for both groups. The faecal samples of both flocks were examined to check the prevalence of any secondary parasitic infection. To nullify the effect of gastrointestinal nematode infections on the production, all animals of both groups were treated with ivermectin (Virbac Animal Health Ltd., India) @ 0.2 mg per kg body weight subcutaneously during the months of October 2020, March and July 2021. The prevalence of amphistomosis in rams and ewes was determined by sedimentation technique (Soulsby \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe animals in treated group were provided oxyclozanide (Neozide bolus, Intas Pharmaceuticals, India) @ of 15 mg/kg body weight at three months interval with the estimated treatment cost of rupees 40.0 per animal per year. The faecal samples of control group were examined at regular intervals to check the persistence of amphistome infection and same procedure was applied to treated group to check the sustainable control of amphistomosis. To estimate the economic growth, various production parameters were evaluated for both the groups during study viz. average body weight, average wool yield, reproductive potential of ewes and average birth weight of lambs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic growth due to body weight\u003c/b\u003e The average body weight of both control (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120) and treated animals (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120) was recorded at the end of study period. Proportion of infection for amphistomosis in both groups was also recorded. The formula devised by Yadav et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) was modified to estimate the economic growth due to body weight gain in treated flock as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e [(P\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; P\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e) \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e [((B\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; B\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e)] \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1 \u0026ndash;D)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic growth due to body weight gain\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight after 1 year in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight after 1 year in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of selected age group for study\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of live per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic growth due to wool yield\u003c/b\u003e The average wool yield of both control (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120) and treated animals (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120) was recorded during the study period. The shearing was done twice in a year (April and September 2021) during study period. The total average wool yield for whole year was calculated for both control and treated groups. The formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) was modified to estimate the economic growth due to increase in wool yield in treated flock, as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e [(P\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; P\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e) \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (W\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; W\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e)] \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1 \u0026ndash;D)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic growth due to increase in wool yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average wool yield after 1 year in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected after 1 year in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eW\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight after 1 year in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of selected age group for study\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of wool of sheep per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEconomic growth due to reproductive potential of ewes and birth weight of lambs\u003c/b\u003e The average reproductive potential of control (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78) and treated ewes (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;78) and the average birth weight of lambs born from respective group of ewes was recorded. Average reproductive potential of ewes was estimated by calculating the average number of lambs born from particular group of ewes during 1 year study period. Formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) was modified to calculate the economic growth due to increased reproductive potential of ewes and increased birth weight of lambs as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLR\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e= [\u003c/b\u003e(P\u003csub\u003eETN1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; P\u003csub\u003eECN1\u003c/sub\u003e) \u0026times; (R.P\u003csub\u003eTE1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; R.P\u003csub\u003eCE1\u003c/sub\u003e) \u0026times; (B\u003csub\u003eLTE1\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; B\u003csub\u003eLCE1\u003c/sub\u003e)] \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e F\u003csub\u003eSE\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e V\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e\u0026times;\u003c/b\u003e (1 \u0026ndash;D\u003csub\u003eE\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLR\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e: Economic growth due to increased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eTEN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected ewes after 1 year in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eLTE1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average birth weight of lambs born from ewes in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eCEN1\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of uninfected ewes after 1 year in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003eLCE1\u003c/sub\u003e: Average body weight of lambs born from ewes in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eR.P\u003csub\u003eCNE1\u003c/sub\u003e: Reproductive potential of uninfected ewes in control group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eR.P\u003csub\u003eTNE1\u003c/sub\u003e: Reproductive potential of ewes in treated group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003eSE\u003c/sub\u003e: Flock size of ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u003csub\u003eLW\u003c/sub\u003e: Price in rupees of live per kilogram\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003csub\u003eE\u003c/sub\u003e: Proportion of mortality due to amphistomosis in ewes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total economic growth due to sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep was calculated by sum of growth from all production parameters and subtracting the cost of treatment for whole flock per annum using formula devised by Singh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) with modifications as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal gain = (B\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e + W\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e + LR\u003csub\u003eG\u003c/sub\u003e) \u0026ndash; treatment cost in rupees (for treated flock size)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/b\u003e The coprological prevalence data were compared by \u003cem\u003echi-square\u003c/em\u003e test. One way ANOVA (SPSS 16.0) was used to compare mean egg counts (total number of fluke eggs divided by total number of animals) were compared by one way ANOVA (SPSS 16.0). The body weight, birth weight, wool yield and reproductive potential of animals in different groups were compared by using student\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test. Proportion of infected and non-infected was compared by using chi-square (χ2) test. The significantly different (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) means were ranked using Duncan\u0026rsquo;s multiple range test (Duncan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrevalence of amphistomosis in sheep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eOverall prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep was recorded to be 36.3% (440/1210) (Table 1). Among seasons, a significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) higher prevalence was recorded during monsoon (49.8%) and post-monsoon (42.7%) seasons in comparison to winter (31.4%) and summer (25.9%) seasons. Significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) higher mean egg output (46.5\u0026plusmn;0.42) was observed in monsoon season followed by summer (27.6\u0026plusmn;0.41), post-monsoon (22.0 \u0026plusmn; 0.17) and winter seasons (12.7\u0026plusmn;0.42). The monthwise prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep is presented in Fig. 1. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the different age groups of sheep examined, significantly higher (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) prevalence was recorded in 6 months to 1 year of age group (40.4%) followed by above 1 year of age (31.6%) and the least in below 6 months of age (16.9%) groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEconomic losses due to amphistomosis in sheep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLoss due to decreased body weight\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAmong the study group for average body weight parameter (n=384), the prevalence of amphistomosis was recorded as 51.6% (Table 2). The average body weight of non-infected group (41.8 kg) was significantly (p\u0026lt; 0.05) higher than infected group (32.6 kg) (Table 2). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from sheep infected with amphistomosis was found to be rupees 441600.0 for the study flock (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1150.0 at an average per animal per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLoss due to decreased wool yield\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe flock which evaluated for body weight, was also evaluated for average wool loss. The average wool yield of non-infected group (1.2 kg) was significantly (p\u0026lt; 0.05) higher than infected group (0.8 kg) (Table 2). Taking Rs. 35.0 per kg as raw wool price of sheep as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from sheep infected with amphistomosis due to reduced wool yield was found to be rupees 2688.0 for the study flock (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 7.0 at an average per animal per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLoss due to decreased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe ewes were considered (n=232) to evaluate reproductive potential and the lambs born from these ewes during study period were evaluated for average birth weight. The prevalence of amphistomosis in ewes was recorded as 78.4% (Table 2). The average reproductive potential of non-infected ewes (1.6) was significantly (p\u0026lt; 0.05) higher than infected ewes (1.1) (Table 2). The average birth weight of lambs born from non-infected ewes (4.2 kg) was also significantly (p\u0026lt; 0.05) higher than lambs born from infected ewes (3.4 kg) (Table 2). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic loss from ewes due to reduced reproductive potential and less birth weight of lambs was found to be rupees 18096.0 for the study flock of ewes (Table 2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 78.0 at an average per ewe per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal economic loss\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eFrom the calculation, the total annual economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 462384.0 (US $6188.2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum.\u0026nbsp;No mortality was recorded during the study period among the survey flock (D= 0).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEconomic growth due to control of amphistomosis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfit due to increased body weight:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe average body weight of adults was recorded for control (n=120) and treated (n=120). At day 0 of treatment, prevalence of amphistomosis and average body weight exhibited no significant difference between control and treated groups. After 1 year, the prevalence of amphistomosis was recorded as 72.5% and 9.2% in control and treated animals, respectively (Table 3). The average body weight of treated group after 1 year (48.3 kg) was significantly (p\u0026lt;0.05) higher than control group (43.4 kg) (Table 3). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic growth from sheep by sustainable control of amphistomosis due to increased body weight gain was found to be rupees\u0026nbsp;101430.0\u0026nbsp;for the study flock (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 846.0 at an average per animal per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfit due to increased wool yield\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;The flock as evaluated for weight, was also evaluated for average wool gain. At day 0 of treatment, average wool yield revealed no significant difference between control and treated groups. The average wool yield of treated group (1.5 kg) was significantly (p\u0026lt; 0.05) higher than control group (0.82 kg) after 1 year of treatment (Table 3). Taking rupees 35.0 as raw wool price of sheep per kg as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic recovery from sheep by sustainable control of amphistomosis due to increased wool yield was found to be rupees 1806.0 for the study flock (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 15.0 at an average per animal per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfit due to increased reproductive potential and birth weight of lambs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe ewes (n=232) were evaluated for reproductive potential and the lambs born from these ewes during study period were evaluated for average birth weight. At day 0 of treatment, prevalence revealed no significant difference (p\u0026gt;0.05) between control and treated groups. The prevalence of amphistomosis in ewes was recorded as 78.4% and 16.1% in control and treated groups, respectively after 1 year (Table 3). The average reproductive potential of treated ewes (1.8) was significantly (p\u0026lt;0.05) higher than control ewes (1.1) (Table 3). The average birth weight of lambs born from treated ewes (4.6 kg) was also significantly (p\u0026lt;0.05) higher than lambs born from control ewes (3.5 kg) (Table 3). Considering rupees 250.0 as live weight price of sheep per kg body weight as recommended by the government of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021, the annual economic recovery from ewes due to increased reproductive potential and increased birth weight of lambs was found to be rupees 9309.0 for the study flock of ewes (Table 3) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 120.0 at an average per ewe per annum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal economic growth:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eEvaluation of the total annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 107745.0 (US $1441.9) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 981.0 per animal per annum. The treatment cost @ rupees 40.0 per animal was also subtracted from the total economic recovery. No mortality was recorded during the study period among the survey flock (D=0). The comparison of total economic loss and recovery is shown in Fig. 2.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough amphistomosis encountered throughout the year, a significant difference (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) was recorded on \u003cem\u003eChi-square\u003c/em\u003e analysis in the seasonal prevalence of amphistomosis. The monthwise prevalence (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) provided a better picture of disease distribution during the study period. Due to enhancement of temperature during late winter months, the over wintered eggs and the eggs deposited in the pasture during this period hatch and miracidia enter into the snail intermediate host. The infective stage from snail passes onto the herbage during late summer resulted into the sudden rise in the prevalence of amphistomosis during monsoon months. The new crop of snails produced at the start of rainy season further increase the number of cercariae on the pasture leads to gradual build-up of fluke population and higher egg output during monsoon season and losses are continue throughout the post-monsoon and early winter months (Garg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Khajuria et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Godara et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the increase in egg counts was noticed from late summer months which attained peak during rainy season and decreased sharply during post-monsoon and winter seasons as observed herein.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe low infection rate of animals\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;6 months can be attributed to maternal immunity attained by very young animals. After weaning, the growing animals (6 month to 1 year ) when go for their first grazing they pick up higher doses of infective stage as their innate immunity is on reducing side, whereas acquired immunity is in starting phase. The lower infection rate in older animals could be the result of previous exposure which led to immunity and moderating the intensity of re-infection (Horak \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e; Pfukenyi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gastrointestinal helminthic infections, both clinical and subclinical, generate significant economic losses in sheep production (Gal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). The main benefit of economic analysis of parasite control measures is that it gives a foundation for making rational decisions about the best course of action to pursue in various situations. It also increases one's trust in the precision with which various control procedures have been ranked in a study. In the current study, the total economic loss caused by amphistomosis was calculated as rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum and by sustainable control of amphistomosis, we were able to recover rupees 981.0 per animal per annum (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Among the various production parameters, the reduced body weight contributed the highest in economic loss (95.5%) followed by reduced birth weight of lambs (3.9%) and the least by reduced wool yield (0.6%), whereas in annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock, the increased body weight contributed the highest in economic recovery (90.1%) followed by increased birth weight of lambs (8.3%) and the least by increased wool yield (1.6%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJas et al. (2009) in a field investigation revealed that the anthelmintic therapy of sheep improved meat production by suppressing gastrointestinal helminthic infections. During one year study period, they found the average loss of body weight due to gastrointestinal nematodosis as 3.23 kg, with a net per capita loss of 1.61 kg meat output in the infected group. In small ruminants, the helminthic infections cause economic losses mostly due to lower weight gain (Jas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) as observed herein. Previously, Yadav et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) had estimated economic losses of rupees 73.26\u0026nbsp;million per year due to \u003cem\u003ePrzhevalskiana silenus\u003c/em\u003e (goat warble fly) infestation in goats of Jammu region (India), with lower growth alone accounting for 49.0% of the total losses. In addition, meat output, wool production, sperm concentration, and ovulation rate have all been demonstrated to be affected by gastrointestinal helminths (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Abella et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Further, lamb survival, birth weight and daily gain are all poorer in infected ewes. Furthermore, the parasitized sheep produce less milk (Familton et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) and have decreased protein concentrations, fat, and lactose in their milk (Rinaldi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Sechi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Earlier, Jas et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) did an economic loss study in goats that were kept as anthelmintic treated and infected, with economic losses of rupees 158.1 and 167.2, respectively. Although the consequences of parasitism on output have been acknowledged (Charlier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), there is still a need to quantify these losses as sheep are an important source of revenue in many nations (Morris \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Statements And Declarations","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe financial support was provided by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) under grant number JKRO/FSDD/SKUAST-J/DPR/1209/2019-20. The author R. Katoch has received research support from NABARD. The authors declare that no funds, grant or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003e The data sets generated during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode availability:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Omer Mohi-U-Din Sofi, R. Godara, Anish Yadav, Kaifa Nazim and D. Chakraborty. The grant was brought by R. Katoch. The first draft of the manuscript was written by R. Godara. All authors read and approved final manuscript.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgrawal, M.C., 2003. Epidemiology of fluke infections. In: Sood, M.L. (ed.) Helminthology in India, 1st edn., International Book Distributors, Dehradun, India, pp. 511\u0026ndash;542.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharlier, J., van der Voort, M., Kenyon, F., Skuce, P. and Vercruysse, J., 2014. Chasing helminths and their economic impact on farmed ruminants. Trends in Parasitology, 30, 361\u0026ndash;367.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoudhury, N., 1994. Helminths of domesticated animal in Indian subcontinent. In: Chowdhury, N. and Tada, I. (eds.) Helminthology, 1st\u0026nbsp;edn., Narosa, New, Delhi, pp.\u0026nbsp;73\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuncan, B.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple \u0026lsquo;F\u0026rsquo; test: Biometrics, 11, 1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDutt, S.C., 1980. Paramphistomes and paramphistomiasis of domestic ruminants in India. Monograph, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, pp.\u0026nbsp;1\u0026ndash;162.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFamilton, A., Mcanulti, R., Thompson, K and Sedcole, J., 1995. The effect of anthelmintic treatment of ewes during pregnancy. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 55, 211\u0026ndash;213.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Abella, D., Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Russo, Z. and Villegas, N., 2006. Effect of gastrointestinal nematodes on ovulation rate of merino Booroola heterozygote ewes (FecB Fec+). Animal Research, 55(6), 545\u0026ndash;550.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGal, C., 1981. Goat Production. Academic Press, London/New York, pp.\u0026nbsp;619.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarg, Rajat, Yadav, C.L., Kumar, R.R., Banerjee, P.S., Vatsya, S. and Godara, R., 2009. The epidemiology of fasciolosis in ruminants in different geo-climatic regions of north India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41, 1695\u0026ndash;1700.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGodara, R., Katoch, R., Yadav, A. and Rastogi, A., 2014. Epidemiology of paramphistomosis in sheep and goats in Jammu, India. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 38, 423\u0026ndash;428.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Russo, Z., Irabuena, O., Sterla, S. and Fern\u0026aacute;ndez Abella, D., 2021. Effect of gastrointestinal nematodes on reproduction and lamb growth in Australian merino sheep. Journal of Veterinary Science and Research, 6(1), 204.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorak, I.C., 1971. Paramphistomiasis of domestic ruminants. Advances in Parasitology, 9, 3\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIlangopathy, M., Palavesam, A., Amaresan, S.S. and Muthusamy, R., 2019. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodes on meat production from sheep. International Journal of Livestock Research, 9, 44\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJas, R. and Ghosh, J.D., 2009. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodosis in sheep: Enhanced meat production by anthelmintic treatment, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 79, 761\u0026ndash;763.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJas, R., Datta, S., and Ghosh, J.D., 2007. Economic impact of gastrointestinal nematodosis in goat on meat production, Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 21, 109\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan, R.M., 2001. \u003cem\u003eFasciola hepatica\u003c/em\u003e: a review of the economic impact in cattle and considerations for control. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2(1), 40\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhajuria, J.K., Katoch, R., Yadav, Anish, Godara, R. and Singh, A., 2012. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in small ruminants of low altitude subtropical zone of Jammu province. Journal of Veterinary Parasitology, 26(2), 151\u0026ndash;155.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhajuria, J.K., Katoch, R., Yadav, A., Godara, R., Gupta, S.K. and Singh, A., 2013. Seasonal prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in sheep and goats of middle agro-climatic zone of Jammu province. Journal of Parasitic Diseases, 37, 21\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMavrot, F., Hertzberg, H. and Torgerson, P., 2015. Effect of gastro-intestinal nematode infection on sheep performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasites and Vectors, 8(1), 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris, S.T., 2009. Economics of sheep production. Small Ruminant Research, 86, 59\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNgategize, P.K., Bekele, T. and Tilahun, G., 1993. Financial losses caused by ovine fasciolosis in the Ethiopian highlands. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 25(3), 155\u0026ndash;161.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePfukenyi, D.M., Mukaratirwa, S., Willingham, A.L. and Monrad, J., 2005. Epidemiological studies of amphistome infections in cattle in the Highveld and Lowveld communal grazing areas of Zimbabwe. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 72, 67\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahman, M.A. and Hossain, W.I.M.A., 1997 Introductory Animal Hygiene and Management, 1st Edn., Department of Microbiology and Hygiene, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, pp.\u0026nbsp;7\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRashid, M., Rashid, M. I., Akbar, H., Ahmad, L., Hassan, M. A., Ashraf, K. and Gharbi, M., 2019. A systematic review on modelling approaches for economic losses studies caused by parasites and their associated diseases in cattle. Parasitology, 146(2), 129\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRinaldi, L., Veneziano, V. and Cringoli, G., 2007. Dairy goat production and the importance of gastrointestinal strongly parasitism. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 101(8), 745\u0026ndash;746.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSechi, S., Giobbe, M., Sanna, G., Casu, S. and Carta, A., 2010. Effects of anthelmintic treatment on milk production in Sarda dairy ewes naturally infected by gastrointestinal nematodes. Small Ruminant Research, 88(2), 145\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh, B., Bardhan, D., Verma, M. R., Prasad, S. and Sinha, D.K., 2014. Estimation of economic losses due to \u003cem\u003ePeste de Petits Ruminants\u003c/em\u003e in small ruminants in India. Veterinary World, 7(4), 194\u0026ndash;199.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoulsby, E.J.L., 1982. \u003cem\u003eHelminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals\u003c/em\u003e, 7th\u0026nbsp;edn., ELBS and Bailliere Tindall, London, UK, pp.\u0026nbsp;707\u0026ndash;735.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYadav, A., Katoch, R., Khajuria, J.K., Katoch, M. and Rastogi, A., 2012. Economic impact of \u003cem\u003ePrzhevalskiana silenus\u003c/em\u003e infestation in native goats of Northern India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44, 581\u0026ndash;587.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Seasonal prevalence of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e___________________________________________________________________________\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeason \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Examined \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Infected (%) \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Mean egg count (\u0026plusmn;SEM)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e___________________________________________________________________________\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWinter \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;290 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;91 (31.4)\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;12.7\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026plusmn; 0.42\u003csup\u003ep \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSummer \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 390 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 101 (25.9)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;27.6 \u0026plusmn; 0.41\u003csup\u003eq\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMonsoon \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 305 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 152 (49.8)\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;46.5 \u0026plusmn; 0.42\u003csup\u003es\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePost-monsoon \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 225 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;96 (42.7)\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;22.0 \u0026plusmn; 0.17\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e_____________________________________________________________________________________________\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValues with different superscripts in a column differ significantly at significance level of 5%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 Economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep\u0026nbsp;of north-western Himalayas, India\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomic parameters (comparable age group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(I)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(N)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProportion infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(P\u003csub\u003eI\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlock size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue (Rs.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(V)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoss due to each parameter (rupees)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.529880478087648%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"21.51394422310757%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"27.49003984063745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.342629482071713%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.12350597609562%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage adult body weight per animal (kg) (B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.6\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.8\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e441600\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage wool yield \u0026nbsp;per\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eanimal (kg) (W)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003csup\u003ep\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn; 0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003csup\u003eq\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn; 0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2688\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReproductive potential (lambs/year/ewe) (R.P)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003csup\u003ex\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn; 0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003csup\u003ey\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage birth weight of\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elambs born \u0026nbsp;from ewes(kg) (B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003csup\u003et\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.2\u003csup\u003eu\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18096\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.741935483870968%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.35483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.935483870967742%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.806451612903224%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.290322580645162%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.387096774193548%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.483870967741936%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e462384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent superscripts indicate significant difference (p\u0026lt; 0.05) between infected and non-infected with parameters of average body weight (a, b), average wool yield (p, q), \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;reproductive potential (x, y) and average birth weight of lambs (t, u)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 Economic growth and stabilization by altering production parameters of sheep through sustainable control of amphistomosis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" width=\"17.322834645669293%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomic parameters\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(comparable age group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" valign=\"top\" width=\"55.455568053993254%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroups\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" width=\"7.986501687289089%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlock size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(F\u003csub\u003eS\u003c/sub\u003e) (equal for both groups)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" width=\"8.88638920134983%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue (Rs.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(V)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" width=\"10.348706411698538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGain due to each parameter (rupees)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 day\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.365853658536585%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.634146341463415%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProportion non infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0 day)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"15.447154471544716%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProportion non infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(P\u003csub\u003eCN1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.365853658536585%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 day\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.634146341463415%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProportion non infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0 day)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"15.447154471544716%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProportion non infected\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(P\u003csub\u003eTN1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage adult body weight per animal (kg) (B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.8\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;5.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.4\u003csup\u003eB\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;7.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003csup\u003eg\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003csup\u003eg\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.4\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;5.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.3\u003csup\u003eA\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003csup\u003eG\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003csup\u003eH\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101430\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage wool yield \u0026nbsp;per animal (kg) (W)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003csup\u003ep\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003csup\u003eE\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003csup\u003ej\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003csup\u003ej\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003csup\u003ep\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003csup\u003eD\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003csup\u003eJ\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003csup\u003eK\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReproductive potential(lambs/year/ewe) (R.P)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003csup\u003ex\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003csup\u003eN\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003csup\u003ez\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003csup\u003ez\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003csup\u003ex\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003csup\u003eM\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003csup\u003eY\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003csup\u003eZ\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage birth weight of\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elambs born \u0026nbsp;from ewes(kg) (B)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.8\u003csup\u003et\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003csup\u003eR\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003csup\u003et\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003csup\u003eQ\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026plusmn;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9309\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment cost (rupees)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40/animal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"17.34234234234234%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrand total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.743243243243243%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.292792792792793%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.108108108108109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.558558558558559%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.995495495495495%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.896396396396396%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.36036036036036%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107745\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent superscripts indicate significant difference (p\u0026lt; 0.05) between control and treated groups at respective time periods with parameters of average body weight (a, b) at 0 day and (p, q) at 1 year, average wool yield (p, q) at 0 day and (D, E) at 1 year, reproductive potential (x, y) at 0 day and (M, N) at 1 year, average birth weight of lambs (t, u) at 0 day and (Q, R) at 1 year. Proportion of non-infected was also compared within same group at 0 day and after 1 year with control (g,h; j,k; y,z) and treated (G,H; J,K; Y,Z) in respective production parameters\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Amphistomosis, Economic impact, Epidemiology, Himalayan region, Sheep","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAmphistomosis in sheep (n=1210) was examined from November 2020 to October 2021 from north-western Himalayan region of India. This study took into consideration the seasonal prevalence, the intensity of infection and the economic impact of amphistomosis on production parameters of sheep. The overall prevalence was recorded to be 36.3%. Although infection encountered throughout the year, the significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) higher prevalence was found in monsoon (49.8%) and post-monsoon (42.7%) seasons than winter (31.4%) and summer (25.9%) seasons. Significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) higher mean egg output (46.5±0.42) was observed in monsoon season followed by summer (27.6±0.41), post-monsoon (22.0 ± 0.17) and winter (12.7±0.42) seasons. Animals aged 6 months to 1 year had significantly higher (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05) prevalence (40.4%) than animals above 1 year (31.6%) and below 6 months (16.9%) of age groups. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\tThe total annual economic loss due to amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 462384.0 (US $6188.2) and may be concluded as loss of rupees 1235.0 per animal per annum. Among the various production parameters, reduced body weight contributed the highest in economic loss (95.5%) followed by reduced birth weight of lambs (3.9%) and the least by reduced wool yield (0.6%). Evaluation of the total annual economic recovery by sustainable control of amphistomosis in sheep for the study flock was estimated as rupees 107745.0 (US $1441.9) and may be concluded as recovery of rupees 981.0 per animal per annum. Among the various production parameters, increased body weight contributed the highest in economic recovery (90.1%) followed by increased birth weight of lambs (8.3%) and the least by increased wool yield (1.6%).\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Epidemiology and economic impact of amphistomosis in sheep of north-western Himalayas, India","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-07-21 17:53:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1783347/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4b692005-4480-4e4e-9d53-4e50207f7334","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 21st, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2022-07-29T11:44:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2022-07-21 17:53:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-1783347","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-1783347","identity":"rs-1783347","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"-HB7Z8yhvgn0wM9Nzuekk","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}