The Effect of Noseband Tightness on Tensile Forces While Using Side Reins on Horses

Comparison of the Head and Neck Positions in Ridden Horses Advertised in an Australian Horse Sales Magazine: 2005 Versus 2018

The impact of head and neck position (HNP) on horse welfare has received much attention in the scientific literature within the last two decades. Studies have identified physiological and behavioral signs of distress in horses ridden for prolonged time in an HNP with their noseline behind the vertical (BTV), which may compromise their welfare. The objective of this study was to compare potential differences of HNPs shown in horse sales photographs advertised in an Australian horse sales magazine (Horse Deals) from the years 2005 and 2018. In addition, factors potentially impacting HNPs, such as type of tack presented in (e.g., noseband type), riding discipline, and competition experience of the horse, were investigated. The sample population (n = 570) comprised horses ridden with headgear and bit in walk, trot, or canter/gallop, advertised in an Australian horse sales magazine. Issues from April 2005 and October/November 2018 were selected. Head and neck position was categorized as BTV, on the vertical (OV), slightly in front of the vertical (IFV), or extremely in front of the vertical (EIFV; any HNP >30° IFV). Data were analyzed using the chi-squared test and post hoc testing via a multiple regression approach through SPSS and test of proportions via the Z-score calculator for two independent population proportions. Analysis of combined data from years 2005 and 2018 showed 47.0% (n = 570) of the horse sample population were advertised with HNPs BTV. Behind-the-vertical HNP was observed as the predominant HNP (57.8%; n = 268) in the warmblood/eventers/show/performance (WESP) category (P < .0005). In 2005, 53.4% (n = 303) of the sample population were ridden BTV compared with 39.7% (n = 267) in 2018 (P < .001), 12.9% (n = 303) were OV in 2005 compared with 15.0% (n = 267) in 2018 (P > .05), and 10.9% (n = 303) were IFV in 2005 compared with 27.3% (n = 267) in 2018 (P < .0004). These results suggest a positive development with fewer vendors/riders selecting images where the horse's nose was BTV. However, this may be explained by the larger proportion of horses advertised in the WESP category in 2005 (63.0%; n = 303) versus 2018 (28.5%; n = 267), and the WESP category predominantly comprised of dressage, jumper, and eventing horses. In addition, the reduction of HNPs BTV from 53.4% (n = 303) in 2005 to 39.7% (n = 267) in 2018 could be attributed to the observation that in 2018, a larger proportion of horses were listed in categories that do not require the horses to be worked with a flexed HNP referred to as "on-the-bit" (e.g., western, endurance, Australian sStock horses). The HNP BTV remains preferential by a substantial proportion of the horse-owning public when advertising horses for sale, particularly in disciplines where the horse is worked in a flexed HNP or "on-the-bit."

Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses

BACKGROUND

Information is needed to guide sport administrators in formulating rules for equipment use in competitions.

OBJECTIVES

To seek associations between spurs, bits, nosebands and whips with injuries in horses during competitions in four equestrian sports.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

METHODS

Post competition evaluations were performed in 3143 horse/rider combinations competing in Danish Equestrian Federation competitions in dressage, showjumping, eventing and endurance by trained evaluators who recorded the presence and type of spurs, bits, nosebands, and whips. Further evaluations recorded noseband tightness, (in three categories <2 cm, 2-3 cm, >3 cm), the presence of hair or blood on spurs; hair loss, lesions or blood on the ribcage behind the girth; abrasions and/or blood at the commissures of the lips; and swelling, lesions or blood on the forequarters or hindquarters. Statistical analysis was performed to determine relationships between discipline (dressage, showjumping, eventing, endurance), level of competition (level 0-7), type/tightness of equipment, and prevalence of injuries.

RESULTS

The presence of hair (3.2% of horse/rider combinations) and blood (0.4% of horse/rider combinations) on spurs were highly associated. Longer spurs and lower competition levels were significantly associated with hair on the spurs and worn hair on the horse's ribcage. Oral lesions or blood were visible at the commissures of the lips in 9.2% of horses and increased with level of competition but did not differ between bit types or bitless bridles. Looser upper noseband category was associated with decreased risk of oral lesions (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.51-0.86, P = 0.002). However, the absence of a cavesson increased the risk of lesions at the commissures of the lips 2.39 times compared with the loosest noseband (95% CI 1.4-4.11, P = 0.002).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

The rules of the equestrian federation did not permit a full intraoral examination. Selection of rider/horse combination was not random.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions of the skin or mucosa at the commissures of the lips may be decreased by limiting noseband tightness and lesions on the chest wall may be decreased by limiting the length of spurs.

Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports - An International Study

Nosebands are used by riders to prevent the horse from opening its mouth, to increase control and, in some cases, to comply with the competition rules. While equestrian texts traditionally recommend that two adult human fingers should be able to fit under a fastened noseband, noseband tightness levels are not, in general, regulated in competition. Possible detrimental consequences for the horse, of excessively tight nosebands, include discomfort, pain or tissue damage. The current study investigated noseband usage in equestrian competition. Data regarding noseband type, position, width and tightness were collected from 750 horses in eventing (n = 354), dressage (n = 334) and performance hunter (n = 62) competitions in Ireland, England and Belgium. Data were collected immediately before or after the performance. Using the ISES taper gauge as a guide, results were classified according to the number of ‘fingers’ that could fit under the noseband at the nasal planum, and assigned to six groups: greater than 2 fingers; 2 fingers; 1.5 fingers; 1 finger; 0.5 fingers; zero fingers. A calliper was used to measure noseband width and position relative to the facial crest. The data were not normally distributed so Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used. In all, 44% of horses fell into the zero fingers classification while only 7% were in the two fingers classification. Significant differences emerged between disciplines (p<0.001), with the highest levels of noseband tightness measured among eventers followed by dressage horses with lowest levels among performance hunters. Noseband tightness did not differ significantly with horse age (p>0.05), which ranged from 4 to 19 years. The flash noseband was the most commonly used noseband (n = 326) and was significantly tighter than the cavesson (p < 0.001), drop noseband (p < 0.001) and the Micklem (p < 0.005). Noseband width ranged from 10 to 50 mm. Noseband position varied widely with the distance between the facial crest and upper noseband margin ranging from 0 to 70 mm. The high proportion of very tight nosebands found in this study raises concerns regarding the short and long term behavioural and physiological consequences of such tight nosebands are for the horse. Although these data are currently lacking, the findings are of concern.

An Objective Measure of Noseband Tightness and Its Measurement Using a Novel Digital Tightness Gauge

Noseband tightness is difficult to assess in horses participating in equestrian sports such as dressage, show jumping and three-day-eventing. There is growing concern that nosebands are commonly tightened to such an extent as to restrict normal equine behaviour and possibly cause injury. In the absence of a clear agreed definition of noseband tightness, a simple model of the equine nose-noseband interface environment was developed in order to guide further studies in this area. The normal force component of the noseband tensile force was identified as the key contributor to sub-noseband tissue compression. The model was used to inform the design of a digital tightness gauge which could reliably measure the normal force component of the noseband tensile force. A digital tightness gauge was developed to measure this parameter under nosebands fitted to bridled horses. Results are presented for field tests using two prototype designs. Prototype version three was used in field trial 1 (n = 15, frontal nasal plane sub-noseband site). Results of this trial were used to develop an ergonomically designed prototype, version 4, which was tested in a second field trial (n = 12, frontal nasal plane and lateral sub-noseband site). Nosebands were set to three tightness settings in each trial as judged by a single rater using an International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) taper gauge. Normal forces in the range 7-95 N were recorded at the frontal nasal plane while a lower range 1-28 N was found at the lateral site for the taper gauge range used in the trials. The digital tightness gauge was found to be simple to use, reliable, and safe and its use did not agitate the animals in any discernable way. A simple six point tightness scale is suggested to aid regulation implementation and the control of noseband tightness using normal force measurement as the objective tightness discriminant.