Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32422997›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Influence of Phytase Supplementation at Increasing Doses from 0 to 1500 FTU/kg on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Bone Status in Grower-Finisher Pigs Fed Phosphorus-Deficient Diets.

Eugeniusz R Grela, Siemowit Muszyński, Anna Czech, Janine Donaldson, Piotr Stanisławski, Małgorzata Kapica, Oksana Brezvyn, Viktor Muzyka, Ihor Kotsyumbas, Ewa Tomaszewska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Phytase in Pig Diets: Technical and Economic Evaluation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dose of phytase from eitherTranslational animal science · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eugeniusz R GrelaInstitute of Animal Nutrition and Bromatology, Faculty of Animal Sciences and Bioeconomy, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka St. 12, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.
Siemowit MuszyńskiDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Environmental Biology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka St. 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4118-6302
Anna CzechDepartment of Biochemistry and Toxicology, Faculty of Animal Sciences and Bioeconomy, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka St. 12, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4142-2608
Janine DonaldsonSchool of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, Parktown, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa.
Piotr StanisławskiDSM Nutritional Products Sp. z o.o., Tarczyńska 113, 96-320 Mszczonów, Poland.
Małgorzata KapicaDepartment of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka St. 12, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0681-7065
Oksana BrezvynState Scientific Research Control Institute of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Feed Additives, Donetska St. 11, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine.
Viktor MuzykaState Scientific Research Control Institute of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Feed Additives, Donetska St. 11, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine.
Ihor KotsyumbasState Scientific Research Control Institute of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Feed Additives, Donetska St. 11, 79000 Lviv, Ukraine.
Ewa TomaszewskaDepartment of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka St. 12, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7574-2653

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of the current study is to assess the effects of the inclusion of 6-n phytase to a phosphorous-deficient diet on the growth performance (feed intake, average daily gain, and feed conversion ratio), apparent digestibility of calcium and phosphorus, and bone characteristics of grower-finisher pigs. The experimental diets included a phosphorus-deficient diet containing 0 (negative control), 250, 500, 1000, or 1500 FTU/kg of 6-phytase, and a diet formulated to meet the phosphorus nutrient requirements of pigs (positive control). Pigs were fed the experimental diets from the time they were ~35 kg body weight until they reached slaughter weight of ~110 kg. Bone status of the metacarpal (ash, mineral content) and femur (mineralization, geometry, and mechanical strength) bones were assessed. There was no effect of dietary treatment on feed intake. Feed conversion ratio was improved following inclusion of phytase at a dose of 500 FTU/kg or higher. Phytase inclusion at a dose of 1000 FTU/kg increased the average daily weight gain of grower-finisher pigs. Phytase inclusion at a dose of 500 FTU/kg was sufficient to increase metacarpal phosphorus content. Femur mid-diaphysis ash percentage was significantly increased even after the inclusion of the lowest dose of phytase. Analysis of structural parameters of femur mechanical strength (Young's modulus, yield stress, yield strain, ultimate stress, ultimate strain) showed that the inclusion of a phytase dose of 500 FTU/kg in growing/finishing diets was sufficient to significantly improve bone status of grower-finisher pigs at slaughter.

Indexed as

bonegrower–finisher pigsmechanical testingP and Ca digestibilityphytase

Identifiers

PMID32422997
PMCPMC7278453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.