FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Facial pressure beneath a cavesson noseband adjusted to diff...
Equine veterinary journal2024; 57(4); 1127-1137; doi: 10.1111/evj.14451

Facial pressure beneath a cavesson noseband adjusted to different tightness levels during standing and chewing.

Abstract: Noseband adjustment should avoid discomfort and allow some jaw movement. Objective: To determine pressure beneath a cavesson noseband at five tightness levels during standing and chewing. It was hypothesised that increased noseband tightness is associated with increases in nasal and mandibular pressures while standing and chewing, accompanied by increases in eye temperature and blink rate. Methods: Experimental. Methods: Eight highly-trained dressage horses wore a snaffle bridle with their own bit. Pressure mats over the nasal bones and beneath the mandibular rami recorded sub-noseband pressures (50 Hz) for five tightness levels (2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, 0.0 finger-equivalents from loosest to tightest) measured using a taper gauge during quiet standing and chewing a treat. Eye temperature and blink rate were recorded synchronously. Data were analysed using Friedmans two-way ANOVA with Wilcoxon post hoc tests and Bonferroni adjustment for repeated measures. Significance level p ≤ 0.01. Results: During standing, total force increased from (mean ± SD) 5.8 ± 4.4 N (nasal) and 12.3 ± 8.2 N (mandibular) at 2.0 finger-equivalents to 45.1 ± 24.9 N (nasal) and 70.7 ± 25.7 N (mandibular) at 0.0-finger-equivalents. Forces and pressures were higher on the mandibles than nasal bones although differences did not always reach statistical significance. Horses willingly ingested and chewed a treat at all noseband tightness levels generating forces ~100 N and pressure >40 kPa without increases in eye temperature or blink rate that would suggest discomfort. Post hoc tests indicated significantly higher pressure for 0.0 finger-equivalents than 2.0 finger-equivalents (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Small sample size. Nosebands always tested from loosest to tightest. Conclusions: Mandibular pressure exceeded nasal pressure and values at both sites increased with noseband tightness. Horses accepted high noseband pressures when chewing a treat with a cavesson adjusted from 0.0 to 2.0 finger-equivalents. Blink rate and eye temperature suggest horses were not distressed when chewing at 2.0 to 0.0 finger-equivalents tightness.
© 2024 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-12-22 PubMed ID: 39710981PubMed Central: PMC12135742DOI: 10.1111/evj.14451Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research investigates the impact of five different noseband tightness levels on pressure beneath it on the facial areas of trained dressage horses. The research finds that increased noseband tightness correlates with higher nasal and mandibular pressures in the horses while they are standing and chewing, with generally higher pressures on the mandibles than the nasal bones.

Methodology

  • The study is experimental in nature and involved eight highly-trained dressage horses. Their snaffle bridle was fitted with their usual bit.
  • Pressure mats placed over the horses’ nasal bones and beneath the mandibular rami recorded the pressures under the noseband at 50 Hz for five tightness levels measured from loosest (2.0 finger-equivalents) to tightest (0.0 finger-equivalents). These measurements were taken while the horses stood quietly and chewed a treat.
  • The researchers also recorded the horses’ eye temperature and blink rate simultaneously to indicate any distress.
  • Data collected were analysed using Friedmans two-way ANOVA with Wilcoxon post hoc tests and Bonferroni adjustment for the repeated measures. The researchers set the significance level at p ≤ 0.01.

Results

  • Results showed that during standing, the total force increased significantly from an average of 5.8 N (nasal) and 12.3 N (mandibular) at 2.0 finger-equivalents tightness to 45.1 N (nasal) and 70.7 N (mandibular) at 0.0 finger-equivalents tightness.
  • In general, forces and pressures were higher on the mandibles than the nasal bones, although not all differences reached statistical significance.
  • Despite the increased force and pressure, the horses did not show signs of discomfort such as higher eye temperature or increased blink rate even at the tightest noseband setting.
  • The post hoc tests further revealed significant higher pressure for noseband tightness at 0.0 finger-equivalents than at 2.0 finger-equivalents (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

  • One limitation of the study could be the small sample size and the fact that nosebands were always tested from loosest to tightest.
  • The results showed that mandibular pressure exceeded nasal pressure and the pressure values at both sites increased with the tightness of the noseband.
  • However, it was observed that the horses accepted high noseband pressures when chewing a treat, with the cavesson adjusted from 0.0 to 2.0 finger-equivalents.
  • This suggests that carefully adjusted noseband tightness may not cause distress or discomfort to the horses, as suggested by unchanged blink rates and eye temperatures even at the highest tightness level.

Cite This Article

APA
Clayton HM, Murray R, Williams JM, Walker V, Fisher M, Fisher D, Nixon J, Mackechnie-Guire R. (2024). Facial pressure beneath a cavesson noseband adjusted to different tightness levels during standing and chewing. Equine Vet J, 57(4), 1127-1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14451

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 57
Issue: 4
Pages: 1127-1137

Researcher Affiliations

Clayton, Hilary M
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Murray, Rachel
  • Rossdales LLP, Suffolk, UK.
Williams, Jane M
  • Hartpury University, Equestrian Performance Research Centre, Gloucester, UK.
Walker, Vicki
  • Hartpury University, Equestrian Performance Research Centre, Gloucester, UK.
Fisher, Mark
  • Woolcroft Equine Services, Wisbech, UK.
Fisher, Diane
  • Woolcroft Equine Services, Wisbech, UK.
Nixon, Jane
  • Buckingham Equine Vets, Overton Fields, Buckingham, UK.
Mackechnie-Guire, Russell
  • Hartpury University, Equestrian Performance Research Centre, Gloucester, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / physiology
  • Mastication / physiology
  • Pressure
  • Male
  • Female
  • Posture
  • Face / physiology

Grant Funding

  • Equestrian Canada
  • World Horse Welfare
  • British Equestrian Federation
  • Hartpury University
  • The Worshipful Company of Saddlers

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 33 references
  1. Uldahl M, Clayton HM. Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses. Equine Vet J 2019;51(2):154–162.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12827pubmed: 29502345google scholar: lookup
  2. Doherty O, Conway T, Conway R, Murray G, Casey V. An objective measure of noseband tightness and its measurement using a novel digital tightness gauge. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0168996.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168996pmc: PMC5207410pubmed: 28045955google scholar: lookup
  3. McGreevy PD, Doherty O, Channon W, Kyrklund K, Webster J. The use of nosebands in equitation and the merits of an international equestrian welfare and safety committee: a commentary. Vet J 2017;222:36–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.03.002pubmed: 28410674google scholar: lookup
  4. Podhajsky A. The complete training of horse and rider in the principles of classical horsemanship. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company; 1967.
  5. Kim SM, Cho GJ. Validation of eye temperature assessed using infrared thermography as an indicator of welfare in horses. Appl Sci 2021;11(16):7186.
    doi: 10.3390/app11167186google scholar: lookup
  6. Mott RO, Hawthorne SJ, McBride SD. Blink rate as a measure of stress and attention in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Sci Rep 2020;10(1):21409.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78 386-zpmc: PMC7722727pubmed: 33293559google scholar: lookup
  7. McGreevy P, Warren‐Smith A, Guisard Y. The effect of double bridles and jaw‐clamping crank nosebands on temperature of eyes and facial skin of horses. J Vet Behav 2012;7(3):142–148.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.001google scholar: lookup
  8. Merkies K, Ready C, Farkas L, Hodder A. Eye blink rates and eyelid twitches as a non‐invasive measure of stress in the domestic horse. Animals 2019;9(8):562.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9080562pmc: PMC6721043pubmed: 31443315google scholar: lookup
  9. Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy P. The effect of noseband tightening on horses' behavior, eye temperature, and cardiac responses. PLoS One 2016;11(5):e0154179.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179pmc: PMC4854461pubmed: 27140187google scholar: lookup
  10. Tomberg C, Petagna M, de Selliers de Moranville LA. Spontaneous eye blinks in horses (Equus caballus) are modulated by attention. Sci Rep 2024;14(1):19336.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70141-ypmc: PMC11336180pubmed: 39164361google scholar: lookup
  11. Robinson N, Bye TL. Noseband and poll pressures underneath bitted and bitless bridles and the effects on equine locomotion. J Vet Behav 2021;44:18–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.05.002google scholar: lookup
  12. Murray R, Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. A bridle designed to avoid peak pressure locations under the headpiece and noseband is associated with more uniform pressure and increased carpal and tarsal flexion, compared with the Horse's usual bridle. J Equine Vet Sci 2015;35(11–12):947–955.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.08.023google scholar: lookup
  13. Doherty O, Casey V, McGreevy P, Arkins S. Noseband use in equestrian sports—an international study. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0169060.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169060pmc: PMC5207535pubmed: 28045961google scholar: lookup
  14. Clayton HM, Williams JM. Know your noseband: an exploration of factors that influence riders' choice of noseband. J Vet Behav 2022;47:1–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2021.09.008google scholar: lookup
  15. Tell A, Egenvall A, Lundström T, Wattle O. The prevalence of oral ulceration in Swedish horses when ridden with bit and bridle and when unridden. Vet J 2008;178(3):405–410.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.09.020pubmed: 19027332google scholar: lookup
  16. Anon. Horsemanship for the pony club. Kenilworth, UK: British Horse Society; 1956.
  17. Randle H, McGreevy P. The effect of noseband tightness on rein tension in the ridden horse. J Vet Behav 2013;8(2):e18–e19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2012.12.042google scholar: lookup
  18. Pospisil K, Potz I, Peham C. The effect of noseband tightness on tensile forces while using side reins on horses. Equine Vet J 2014;46(S46):46–47.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12267_142google scholar: lookup
  19. Carmalt JL, Simhofer H, Bienert‐Zeit A, Rawlinson JE, Waldner CL. The association between oral examination findings and computed tomographic appearance of the equine temporomandibular joint. Equine Vet J 2017;49(6):780–783.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12693pubmed: 28437035google scholar: lookup
  20. Bonin SJ, Clayton HM, Lanovaz JL, Johnson TJ. Kinematics of the equine temporomandibular joint. Am J Vet Res 2006;67(3):423–428.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.67.3.423pubmed: 16506903google scholar: lookup
  21. Bonin SJ, Clayton HM, Lanovaz JL, Johnston T. Comparison of mandibular motion in horses chewing hay and pellets. Equine Vet J 2007;39(3):258–262.
    doi: 10.2746/042516407X157792pubmed: 17520978google scholar: lookup
  22. MacKechnie‐Guire R, Murray R, Williams JM, Nixon J, Fisher M, Fisher D. Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the horse's face at trot. Equine Vet J 2025;57(3):774–788.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14420pmc: PMC11982415pubmed: 39305099google scholar: lookup
  23. Miller EK, Freedman DJ, Wallis JD. The prefrontal cortex: categories, concepts and cognition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002;357(1424):1123–1136.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1099pmc: PMC1693009pubmed: 12217179google scholar: lookup
  24. Maier SF, Seligman MEP. Learned helplessness at fifty: insights from neuroscience. Psychol Rev 2016;123(4):349–367.
    doi: 10.1037/rev0000033pmc: PMC4920136pubmed: 27337390google scholar: lookup
  25. Olczak K, Winther Christensen J, Klocek C. Food motivation in horses appears stable across different test situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2018;204:60–65.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.006google scholar: lookup
  26. Casey V, McGreevy PD, O'Muiris E, Doherty O. A preliminary report on estimating the pressures exerted by a crank noseband in the horse. J Vet Behav 2013;8(6):479–484.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.06.003google scholar: lookup
  27. Fitzgibbons PG, DiGiovanni C, Hares S, Akelman E. Safe tourniquet use: a review of the evidence. J Am Acad Orthopaedic Surgeons 2012;20(5):310–319.
    doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-20-05-310pubmed: 22553103google scholar: lookup
  28. Werner D, Nyikos S, Kalpen A, Geuder M, Haas C, Vontobel HD. Druckmessungen Unter Dem Sattel: Eine Studie Mit Einem Elektronischen Sattel‐Messsystem (Novel GmbH). Pferdeheilkunde 2005;18.
  29. Dyson S, Berger JM, Ellis AD, Mullard J. Can the presence of musculoskeletal pain be determined from the facial expressions of ridden horses (FEReq)?. J Vet Behav 2017;19:78–89.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.03.005google scholar: lookup
  30. Dyson S, Bondi A, Routh J, Pollard D. An investigation into the relationship between equine behaviour when tacked‐up and mounted and epaxial muscle hypertonicity or pain, girth region hypersensitivity, saddle‐fit, rider position and balance, and lameness. Equine Vet Educ 2022;34(6):e258–e267.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13440google scholar: lookup
  31. Haussler KK. Pressure algometry for the detection of mechanical nociceptive thresholds in horses. Animals 2020;10(12):1–22.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10122195pmc: PMC7760268pubmed: 33255216google scholar: lookup
  32. Haussler KK, Erb HN. Mechanical nociceptive thresholds in the axial skeleton. Equine Vet J 2006;38(1):70–75.
    pubmed: 16411590
  33. Shah P, Luximon Y. Assessment of pressure sensitivity in the head region for Chinese adults. Appl Ergon 2021;97:103548.
    doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103548pubmed: 34391990google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.