Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770248›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Technical Note: Assessment of two methods for estimating bone ash in pigs.

Madie R Wensley, Carine M Vier, Jordan T Gebhardt, Mike D Tokach, Jason C Woodworth, Robert D Goodband, Joel M DeRouchey

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Synergistic Effects of 25-Hydroxyvitamin DAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of 25-hydroxyvitamin DAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Influence of added 1,25(OH)Translational animal science · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Phosphorus nutrition of growing pigs.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2022
    Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madie R WensleyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Carine M VierDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Kansas State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data from three experiments conducted to evaluate the effects of increasing available P in swine diets were used to compare two different bone processing methods. Our objective was to determine if the procedures influenced treatment differences and the ability to detect changes in the percentage bone ash. In each experiment, pigs (nursery pigs in experiments 1 and 2, and finishing pigs in experiment 3) were fed a wide range of available phosphorus levels provided from either increasing monocalcium P or added phytase. At the completion of each experiment, a subset of pigs was euthanized, and either fibulas (experiments 1 and 2) or metacarpals (experiment 3) were collected to determine the percentage bone ash. Bones were processed by cleaning away all soft tissues followed by ether extraction for 7 d (defatted), or no lipid extraction (non-defatted), and then ashed. In nursery and finishing pigs, defatted bones had increased (P < 0.001) percentage bone ash compared with non-defatted bones. No evidence of a method × treatment interaction or linear and quadratic interactions were observed in bone ash weight and percentage bone ash (P > 0.10) for nursery pigs; however, a linear interaction was detected (P < 0.05) in percentage bone ash for grow-finish pigs. This response was minimal and likely due to increased variation observed in grow-finish pigs when bones were not defatted. The processing method did not affect the ability to detect differences among treatments as a result of changing dietary P concentrations in the nursery or grow-finish pigs. In summary, either non-defatted or defatted bone processing methods can be used to determine bone ash weight and percentage bone ash as a way to assess bone mineralization and dietary treatment differences in nursery pigs; however, the increased variation observed in mature pigs suggests that defatted bone processing is the preferred method for grow-finish pigs.

Indexed as

Bone DensitySwine6-PhytaseAnimalsBone and BonesMineralsPhosphorus, Dietary6-Phytasebone ashMineralsPhosphorus, Dietarybone ashether extractionphosphoruspigs

Identifiers

PMID32770248
PMCPMC7457956
OpenAlexW3047922081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.