Phytol (PYT) is a diterpene member of the long-chain unsaturated acyclic alcohols. PYT and some of its derivatives, including phytanic acid (PA), exert a wide range of biological effects. PYT is a valuable essential oil (EO) used as a fragrance and a potential candidate for a broad range of applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry. There is ample evidence that PA may play a crucial role in the development of pathophysiological states. Focusing on PYT and some of its most relevant derivatives, here we present a systematic review of reported biological activities, along with their underlying mechanism of action. Recent investigations with PYT demonstrated anxiolytic, metabolism-modulating, cytotoxic, antioxidant, autophagy- and apoptosis-inducing, antinociceptive, anti-inflammatory, immune-modulating, and antimicrobial effects. PPARs- and NF-κB-mediated activities are also discussed as mechanisms responsible for some of the bioactivities of PYT. The overall goal of this review is to discuss recent findings pertaining to PYT biological activities and its possible applications.

Current scientific approaches to welfare assessment in broilers are based on individual sampling that can be time consuming under field conditions. On the other hand, farmers conduct routine checks based on walks through the house to screen birds' health condition. We adapted the walks through following line transect methodology used in wildlife studies to explore their feasibility as a welfare assessment tool. The aim of this study was to compare broiler welfare assessed by individual sampling and transect walks. We evaluated 6 identically managed flocks. For individual sampling, we collected measures on 150 birds, including weight, breast dirtiness, hock and footpad dermatitis, lameness, and immobility. Transect observations were conducted by slowly walking on randomized paths within each house recording: immobility, lameness, back dirtiness, sickness, agony, and dead. Transect walks allowed detection of small variations (P < 0.003) in the prevalence of most welfare indicators considered with consistency in interobserver reliability (P ≥ 0.05). In addition, assessments across transects were highly consistent (P ≥ 0.05). Individual sampling was also sensitive to differences across houses (P < 0.01) with the exception of immobility (P = 0.783). No differences were found across sampling locations (P ≥ 0.05). However, both methods differed greatly in the frequency of the incidence of the parameters considered. For example, immobility varied from 0.2 ± 0.02% for transect walks to 4 ± 2.3% for individual sampling, whereas lameness varied between 0.8 ± 0.07% and 24.2 ± 4.7% for transect and samplings, respectively. It is possible that the transect approach may have overlooked walking deficiencies because a large number of birds were scored, although if this was the case, the consistency obtained in the scoring across observers and transects would be surprising. Differences may also be related to possibly biased individual sampling procedures, where less mobile and passive individuals may be more likely to be caught. Furthermore the procedure may cause fatigue and fear reactions reducing mobility. Current study provides new insights into constraints and advantages of broiler on-farm assessment methods, which should be considered for designing on-farm welfare assessment protocols.

Currently, no animal-based protocol for on-farm welfare assessment of commercial turkeys is available. The birds’ size and flighty nature make obtaining a representative sample using traditional methods difficult. The transect walks (TW) approach provides a potential alternative for on-farm assessments of turkey welfare. We compared the TW approach with a traditional method, and data collected as the birds were moved out of the house during the load out process (L). Ten commercial 19- to 20-week-old Hybrid turkey flocks were evaluated (1 flock/house/farm). Half of the flocks were housed on farms deemed as “faring well” by the company, the other half were on “suboptimal” farms. Each house was subdivided longitudinally into 4 transects. Two observers walked the transects in random order, recording the total number of birds per transect that were immobile; lame; aggressive towards a mate; interacting with humans; with visible head, vent, or back wounds; engaging in mounting behaviors; small; featherless; dirty; sick; terminal; or dead. Flocks were re-evaluated on the same day using the individual sampling method (S), where randomly selected birds were scored as they took 10 steps. Flocks were re-assessed within 48 h of the transect evaluation, as birds were funneled out of the house during load out. Using ANOVAs we determined the effects of observers, method, management, and their interactions on proportions of turkeys per house within each category. Outcome parameters were not affected by management (P > 0.05 for all) or observer (P > 0.05 for most), but an assessment method effect was detected (P < 0.05). S differed from the 2 other methods (P < 0.05) for most parameters except aggression towards a mate, back wounds, dirty, sick, and vent wounds. Differences were not detected between data collected using TW and during L, except for dead (P = 0.0007) and immobile (P = 0.007). Results suggest that the TW method is a promising tool for on-farm turkey welfare assessment as it produced results similar to those obtained at L when all birds could be scored individually.