Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37837391›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

The effect of bone and analytical methods on the assessment of bone mineralization response to dietary phosphorus, phytase, and vitamin D in nursery pigs.

Hadley R Williams, Taylor E Chin, Mike D Tokach, Jason C Woodworth, Joel M DeRouchey, Robert D Goodband, Jon R Bergstrom, Michael C Rahe, Christopher L Siepker, Panchan Sitthicharoenchai and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Influence of added 1,25(OH)Translational animal science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hadley R WilliamsDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Taylor E ChinDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7268-4278
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Jon R BergstromDSM Nutritional Products, Parsippany, NJ 07054, USA.
Michael C RaheVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Christopher L SiepkerVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Panchan SitthicharoenchaiVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Scott L RadkeVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Steve M EnsleyDepartment of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.
Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-0201, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6144-6714
Kansas State University · USIowa State University · US

Funding

Minnesota Pork Board
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A total of 360 pigs (DNA 600 × 241, DNA; initially 11.9 ± 0.56 kg) were used in a 28-d trial to evaluate the effects of different bones and analytical methods on the assessment of bone mineralization response to dietary P, vitamin D, and phytase in nursery pigs. Pens of pigs (six pigs per pen) were randomized to six dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with 10 pens per treatment. Dietary treatments were designed to create differences in bone mineralization and included: (1) 0.19% standardized total tract digestibility (STTD) P (deficient), (2) 0.33% STTD P (NRC [2012] requirement) using monocalcium phosphate, (3) 0.33% STTD P including 0.14% release from phytase (Ronozyme HiPhos 2700, DSM Nutritional Products, Parsippany, NJ), (4) 0.44% STTD P using monocalcium phosphate, phytase, and no vitamin D, (5) diet 4 with vitamin D (1,653 IU/kg), and (6) diet 5 with an additional 50 µg/kg of 25(OH)D3 (HyD, DSM Nutritional Products, Parsippany, NJ) estimated to provide an additional 2,000 IU/kg of vitamin D3. After 28 d on feed, eight pigs per treatment were euthanized for bone (metacarpal, 2nd rib, 10th rib, and fibula), blood, and urine analysis. The response to treatment for bone density and ash was dependent upon the bone analyzed (treatment × bone interaction for bone density, P = 0.044; non-defatted bone ash, P = 0.060; defatted bone ash, P = 0.068). Thus, the response related to dietary treatment differed depending on which bone (metacarpal, fibula, 2nd rib, or 10th rib) was measured. Pigs fed 0.19% STTD P had decreased (P < 0.05) bone density and ash (non-defatted and defatted) for all bones compared to 0.44% STTD P, with 0.33% STTD P generally intermediate or similar to 0.44% STTD P. Pigs fed 0.44% STTD P with no vitamin D had greater (P < 0.05) non-defatted fibula ash compared to all treatments other than 0.44% STTD P with added 25(OH)D3. Pigs fed diets with 0.44% STTD P had greater (P < 0.05) defatted second rib ash compared to pigs fed 0.19% STTD P or 0.33% STTD P with no phytase. In summary, bone density and ash responses varied depending on bone analyzed. Differences in bone density and ash in response to P and vitamin D were most apparent with fibulas and second ribs. There were apparent differences in the bone ash percentage between defatted and non-defatted bone. However, differences between the treatments remain consistent regardless of the analytic procedure. For histopathology, 10th ribs were more sensitive than 2nd ribs or fibulas for the detection of lesions.

Indexed as

6-PhytasePhosphorus, DietaryAnimal FeedAnimalsCalcification, PhysiologicDietDigestionDNAGastrointestinal TractMineralsPhosphatesPhosphorusSwineVitamin DVitamins6-Phytasebone ashDNAMineralsPhosphatesPhosphorusPhosphorus, DietaryVitamin DVitaminsbone mineralizationcalciumgrowth performancenursery pigsphosphorusvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID37837391
PMCPMC10635674
OpenAlexW4387637323

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.