ArticleAnimal bioscience2026
Extending the use of Centella asiatica extract in poultry applications using distinct freeze-drying wall materials.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCentella asiatica is a promising phytogenic feed additive for poultry because of its bioactive compounds; however, its heat instability and poor palatability limit direct feed incorporation. Although microencapsulation can enhance stability and controlled release, there have been few comparative studies of wall materials for poultry applications.
methodsThe leaf powder ethanolic extract of Centella asiatica was freeze-dried and microencapsulated with maltodextrin+gum arabic (MD+GA), polyethylene glycol, albumen, gelatin, and sodium alginate across four treatments (T1-T4, core-to-wall ratios 1:10 to 1:4). Encapsulation efficiency (EE %), total phenolic content (TPC), DPPH antioxidant activity, intestinal digestibility, thermal stability (Tm), water activity (aw), and morphology (scanning electron microscopy [SEM] and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy) were evaluated. The data was analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey's honest significant honest significant difference (p<0.05).
resultsMD+GA exhibited the greatest EE % (98.67±0.47%, T1), followed by albumen (94.14±0.94%, T2) and gelatin (85.12±0.85%, T3). Gelatin and albumen showed the greastest TPC (35.81 and 36.44 mg GAE/g) and DPPH activity (27.51±0.41%, T4; 22.07±0.33%, T4), whereas MD+GA showed moderate values (32.73 mg/g; 20.50±0.31%, T4). MD+GA and gelatin had good intestinal digestibility (82.38±1.24%, T1 and 93.21±1.40%, T3, respectively). Albumen (a_w 0.34±0.01, T2) and gelatin (0.39±0.01, T3) were effective moisture controllers, whereas MD+GA was moderate (0.67±0.01, T3). SEM revealed smooth, spherical protein-based microcapsules and rougher polysaccharidebased microcapsules.
conclusionMD+GA provided optimal EE % and intestinal release compared with protein-based materials, while also maintaining good phenolic retention and antioxidant activity, indicating their suitability for antibiotic-free poultry feed formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.