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

Noseband Fit: Measurements and Perceptions of Canadian Equestrians

Recent concerns regarding horse welfare during competition has highlighted the occurrence of overtightened nosebands on competition horses. Current rules are often vague—e.g., “nosebands may never be so tightly fixed as to harm the horse.” To investigate the need and acceptance prior to any rule changes Equestrian Canada (EC) launched a pilot noseband measuring project. Nineteen officiating stewards measured noseband fit using the ISES taper gauge (TG) at 32 equestrian events of various disciplines in 2021. Additionally, stakeholder surveys collected data from 1528 EC members and 27 stewards regarding opinions and perceptions on noseband use, fit, measurement and rules. Descriptive and qualitative statistics along with Pearson chi-squared examined relationships between specific variables. Of the 551 horses tested with the TG, 71% passed the 1.5 cm (two-fingers) measurement and an additional 19% passed the 1 cm (one-finger) measurement. Stewards unanimously agreed that overtightened nosebands present a welfare issue although 63% believed this to represent only a small subset of riders. While 60% of stewards believed the current rules were sufficient, 40% did not. Despite the fact that 84% of stewards believe there should be a standardized fit across disciplines, 52% felt the use of the TG should be at their discretion. The top three reasons riders indicated for using nosebands were discipline expectation (41%), requirement for competition (39%) or for control/safety (32%). Open comments referred to an option to not wear a noseband in competition. Professional riders believed overtightened nosebands were less of a welfare issue than amateur riders (76% vs. 88% respectively; p < 0.025) and correspondingly did not feel the TG was a fair method (44% vs. 68% respectively; p < 0.001). Slightly more than half of the respondents (51.5%) believed that measuring noseband fit on the frontal nasal plane was the appropriate location. To advance equestrian practice, more education is needed to inform stakeholders of the reasons for noseband measurements and appropriate fit.

Rein Tension Signals Elicit Different Behavioral Responses When Comparing Bitted Bridle and Halter

When a rider maintains contact on the reins, rein tension will vary continuously in synchronicity with the horse's gait and stride. This continuous variation makes it difficult to isolate the rein tension variations that represent a rein tension signal, complicating interpretation of rein tension data from the perspective of horse-rider interaction. This study investigated (1) the characteristics of a rein tension signal and (2) horse response to a rein tension signal for backing, comparing pressure applied by a bit (bridle), or by a noseband (halter). Twenty Warmblood horses (10 young, 10 adult) wearing a rein tension meter were trained to step back in the aisle of a stable. The handler stood next to the horse's withers, applying tension on the reins until the horse stepped back. This was repeated eight times with the bridle and eight times with the halter. Data analysis was performed using mixed linear and logistic regression models. Horses displaying behaviors other than backing showed significantly increased response latency and rein tension. Inattentive behavior was significantly more common in the halter treatment and in young horses, compared with the bridle treatment and adult horses. Evasive behaviors with the head, neck, and mouth were significantly more common in the bridle treatment than in the halter treatment and the occurrence of head/neck/mouth behaviors increased with increasing rein tension and duration of the rein tension signal. When controlling for behavior, the horses responded significantly faster and to a lighter rein tension signal in the bridle treatment than in the halter treatment. By scrutinizing data on rein tension signals in relation to horse behavior and training exercise, more can be learnt about the horse's experience of the pressures applied and the timing of the release. This can assist in developing ways to evaluate rein tension in relation to correct use of negative reinforcement.

Prevalence and Distribution of Lesions in the Nasal Bones and Mandibles of a Sample of 144 Riding Horses

Simple Summary

The use of restrictive nosebands in equestrian sports is of increasing concern to veterinarians and equitation scientists. Tightly fitting (restrictive) nosebands are primarily used to keep the horse’s mouth closed in a bid to increase the rider’s control of the horse and avoid penalties that may arise from mouth opening during competitions. The chief concern is that restricting behaviour by tightening the noseband may cause distress and apply pressure to the tissues of the horse’s head. It has been suggested that this pressure may cause injury to the soft tissues of the face and possibly the underlying bones. This opportunistic study of mature cavalry horses (n = 144) was designed to explore relationships between visual and palpable damage to structures that underlie the nosebands of horses and any related bony changes in affected horses, as evidenced by radiography. For nasal bones, the radiologists reported bone deposition in at least 6.9% of the horses and bone thinning in at least 33.3% of the horses, respectively. By palpation, at least 82% of the horses had palpable bone deposition of the nasal bones and at least 32% had palpable bone thinning. For the lower jaw, the radiologists reported increased bone deposition in 18.8–32.6% of the horses but no bone thinning. By palpation, at least 30.67% of the horses had palpable bone deposition in the lower jaw and at least 10.4% had palpable bone thinning. These radiographic results suggest that bone thinning is more apparent in the nasal bones than in the lower jaw and that both palpable and radiographic bone deposition are more likely in the mandible than in the nasal bones. This is the first confirmation of bony lesions at the site typically subjected to pressure from restrictive nosebands. That said, we note that the current study provides no evidence of a causal link between any piece of gear or its putative tightness and the lesions in these anatomical locations. The causes of these palpable and radiographic changes at the site of nosebands merit further investigation because inadvertently damaging the bones of horses as part of equitation is difficult to justify on ethical grounds.

Abstract

Restrictive nosebands are used in equestrian sports to hold the bit in place and reduce mouth-opening, a response that can attract penalties in some sports and is thought to reduce the rider’s control of the horse. Sustained pressure from such tightly fitted (restrictive) nosebands denies normal behaviour and thus, causes frustration and distress that can jeopardise horse welfare. It also may push the cheek against the molar teeth, compress soft tissues including blood vessels and nerves, and possibly induce chronic changes to underlying bone. This study of mature cavalry horses (n = 144) was designed to explore relationships between visual and palpable damage to structures that underlie the nosebands of horses and any related bony changes in those horses as evidenced by radiography. Working independently of each other, two researchers inspected the horses for visual changes and palpable changes before the horses were radiographed. The radiographs were assessed by a separate pair of veterinary radiologists, again working independently of each other. Among the current population of horses, 37.5% had one or more radiographic changes to the nasal bones according to both radiologists, and 13.8% had one or more radiographic changes to the mandible. For nasal bones, the two radiologists reported bone deposition in 6.9% and 8.3% of the horses and bone thinning in 33.3% and 56.9% of the horses, respectively. By palpation, they found that 82% and 84% of the horses had palpable bone deposition of the nasal bones and 32% and 33.4% had palpable bone thinning. For the mandibles, the radiologists reported increased bone deposition in 18.8% and 32.6% of the horses but no bone thinning. By palpation, the two examiners reported 30.6% and 32.7% of the horses had palpable bone deposition and 10.4% and 11.1% had palpable bone thinning. This is the first report of lesions to the mandible at this site and this article presents the first confirmation of bony lesions at the site typically subjected to pressure from restrictive nosebands. These results suggest that radiographic bone thinning is more apparent in the nasal bones of riding horses than in the mandible and that both palpable and radiographic bone deposition are more likely in the mandible than in the nasal bones. That said, we note that the current study provides no evidence of a causal link between any piece of gear or its putative tightness and the lesions in these anatomical locations. Further studies are needed to identify risk factors for these clusters of lesions. The inadvertent deformation of bones in the horse’s head for competitive advantage is difficult to justify on ethical grounds.

The Reported Use of Nosebands in Racing and Equestrian Pursuits

Simple Summary

Nosebands are commonly used in many equestrian and racing disciplines. Despite common industry knowledge regarding the correct adjustment of nosebands, there seems to be a trend of overtightening nosebands and exposing horses to high pressures that restrict normal behaviours. Thus, there are concerns that nosebands could have harmful physical and behavioural impacts on horses. This article reports the results of an online survey of horse owners, riders and trainers that explored the distribution of common noseband designs across various disciplines, the reasons for their use, their perceived effectiveness, design preferences and how tightness is monitored, as well as detrimental consequences of their use. Most respondents reported using Plain Cavesson nosebands, with Hanoverian nosebands and so-called “cranking” systems also being common. Reasons for using nosebands varied widely among respondents according to noseband type and discipline. Preventing a horse’s tongue from moving over the bit, improving its appearance and aligning with the rules of the sport were the most nominated options. Almost a fifth of respondents reported physical and behavioural complications related to noseband use. The most common complication was hair loss under the noseband. Most respondents specified that they check noseband tightness at the bridge of the nose. Given the emerging discourse around restrictive nosebands and horse welfare, this article can inform industry and regulatory bodies about the types of nosebands used on horses in training and competition, the reasons for using nosebands and how noseband tightness is being monitored.

Abstract

This article reports on the results of a survey designed to explore the types of nosebands that owners, riders and trainers use in training and competition, their reasons for using nosebands, the design preferences in different disciplines and approaches to noseband tightness and monitoring, as well as the incidence of negative impacts related to noseband usage. Respondents (n = 3040) were asked to specify the type of noseband they were currently using and to rate how effective they were in achieving these stated reasons. Respondents who used nosebands (n = 2332) most commonly used Plain Cavesson (46.6%, n = 1087) and Hanoverian (24.8%, n = 579) nosebands. The reasons provided in the survey for noseband usage were grouped into three broad, mutually exclusive categories: Anatomical; Consequential and Passive. Responses across these categories were fairly evenly distributed overall: Anatomical (29.5%, n = 1501), Consequential (30.6%, n = 1560), Passive (32.9%, n = 1673) and other reasons (7.0%, n = 358). Across all respondents (n = 2332), the most common Anatomical reason given was to prevent the horse’s tongue from moving over the bit (20.8%, n = 485), the most common Consequential reason was to improve the appearance of the horse (20.4%, n = 476), with aligning with the rules of the sport (30.2%, n = 705) the most popular Passive reason. Of the respondents who answered the question of checking noseband tightness (n = 2295), most reported checking noseband tightness at the bridge of the nose (62.1%, n = 1426), some (10.4%, n = 238) reported checking for tightness on the side of the face and others under the chin (21.5%, n = 496). This survey also revealed some of the potential issues associated with noseband use, with 18.6% (n = 434) reporting at least one physical or behavioural complication. The most common complication was hair loss under the noseband (39.9%, n = 173). Crank systems were reported to be used by 28.9% (n = 665) of respondents. This is of concern as these devices can be excessively tightened, minimising jaw and tongue movement and may compromise horse welfare. Indeed, the current data in our study show that these devices are associated with an increased risk of complications being reported. Against the backdrop of potential harm to horse welfare associated with restrictive nosebands, this report may serve as a guide for future regulations and research. It helps improve our understanding of noseband preferences and their use in different disciplines.

Mouth Pain in Horses: Physiological Foundations, Behavioural Indices, Welfare Implications, and a Suggested Solution

Simple Summary

Mouth pain in horses, specifically that caused by bits, is evaluated as a significant welfare issue. The conscious experiences of pain generated within the body generally, its roles, and its assessment using behaviour, as well as the sensory functionality of the horse’s mouth, are outlined as background to a more detailed evaluation of mouth pain. Bit-induced mouth pain elicited by compression, laceration, inflammation, impeded blood flow, and the stretching of tissues is considered. Observable signs of mouth pain are behaviours that are present in bitted horses and absent or much less prevalent when they are bit-free. It is noted that many equestrians do not recognise that these behaviours indicate mouth pain, so that the magnitude of the problem is often underestimated. The negative experiences that are most responsible for welfare compromise include the pain itself, but also, related to this pain, potentially intense breathlessness, anxiety, and fear. Finally, a series of questions is proposed to clarify issues that are relevant to increasing the adoption of bit-free bridles in order to avoid bit-induced mouth pain.

Abstract

A proposition addressed here is that, although bitted horses are viewed by many equestrians as being largely free of bit-related mouth pain, it seems likely that most behavioural signs of such pain are simply not recognised. Background information is provided on the following: the major features of pain generation and experience; cerebrocortical involvement in the conscious experience of pain by mammals; the numerous other subjective experiences mammals can have; adjunct physiological responses to pain; some general feature of behavioural responses to pain; and the neural bases of sensations generated within the mouth. Mouth pain in horses is then discussed. The areas considered exclude dental disease, but they include the stimulation of pain receptors by bits in the interdental space, the tongue, the commissures of the mouth, and the buccal mucosa. Compression, laceration, inflammation, impeded tissue blood flow, and tissue stretching are evaluated as noxious stimuli. The high pain sensitivity of the interdental space is described, as are likely increases in pain sensitivity due to repeated bit contact with bruises, cuts, tears, and/or ulcers wherever they are located in the mouth. Behavioural indices of mouth pain are then identified by contrasting the behaviours of horses when wearing bitted bridles, when changed from bitted to bit-free bridles, and when free-roaming unbitted in the wild. Observed indicative behaviours involve mouth movements, head-neck position, and facial expression (“pain face”), as well as characteristic body movements and gait. The welfare impacts of bit-related pain include the noxiousness of the pain itself as well as likely anxiety when anticipating the pain and fear whilst experiencing it, especially if the pain is severe. In addition, particular mouth behaviours impede airflow within the air passages of the upper respiratory system, effects that, in their turn, adversely affect the air passages in the lungs. Here, they increase airflow resistance and decrease alveolar gas exchange, giving rise to suffocating experiences of breathlessness. In addition, breathlessness is a likely consequence of the low jowl angles commonly maintained during dressage. If severe, as with pain, the prospect of breathlessness is likely to give rise to anxiety and the direct experience of breathlessness to fear. The related components of welfare compromise therefore likely involve pain, breathlessness, anxiety, and fear. Finally, a 12-point strategy is proposed to give greater impetus to a wider adoption of bit-free bridles in order to avoid bit-induced mouth pain.

Practice of Noseband Use and Intentions Towards Behavioural Change in Dutch Equestrians

Simple Summary

The space between the noseband and the skin of competition horses is a current welfare issue. The practices regarding the noseband tightness of Dutch horses was studied, as well as the intentions of Dutch equestrians when fastening the noseband. More than half (59%) of Dutch riders had their horses’ nosebands tightened according to the new two-finger regulation, implemented 1 April 2019. Dressage horses and older horses wore less tight nosebands compared to show jumping and younger horses. Results of an internet survey on intentions for noseband use showed that 54.5% of the respondents agreed with the new regulation and 62% believe that it will improve horse welfare. The respondents could be categorised into three different groups that differed regarding their own attitude towards noseband tightening behaviour, how peer pressure may affect noseband tightening behaviour, and how they perceived the new regulation. To improve horse welfare, knowledge transfer should include different strategies for different groups. Moreover, to convince equestrians to adhere to, and ensure a successful implementation of, the new regulation, transparency and objective measurements should be put in place.

Abstract

Understanding equestrians’ noseband tightening practices and intentions is necessary to target welfare improvement strategies. Firstly, we measured tightness in dressage and show jumping horses in The Netherlands, shortly after implementation of the two-finger rule by the Royal Dutch Equestrian Federation. Noseband tightness decreased with age, was less tight in dressage horses than in show jumpers, and was dependent on the interaction between competition level and discipline. Fifty-nine percent of the riders tightened nosebands to such an extent that they adhered to the new regulation. Secondly, we conducted an online survey to gain insight into whether riders were aware of noseband use and tightening behaviour. Of the 386 respondents, 54.5% agreed with the new regulations, and 62% believe that it improves horses’ welfare. Applying cluster analysis to statements regarding their own attitude, peer pressure, and behavioural control produced three clusters. Noticeably, a lower percentage of Cluster 1 respondents (38%) performing at higher levels was convinced that the new regulation improved welfare than Cluster 2 (77.9%) and 3 (89.0%) respondents. Designing strategies to ensure the successful implementation of the new regulation and to convince equestrians to comply would be most effective if targeted differentially, and should include a transparent and objective form of regulation.

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.