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 / Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the hor...
Equine veterinary journal2024; doi: 10.1111/evj.14420

Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the horse’s face at trot.

Abstract: Poor noseband adjustment could create high pressures that may risk pain or tissue damage. Objective: To quantify sub-noseband pressures dorsally over the nasal bone and ventrally over the mandibular rami for a Cavesson, Swedish (crank), Drop and Flash noseband at five tightness levels (2.0 to 0.0 finger equivalents). Methods: In vivo experiments. Methods: Eight high-level dressage horses were ridden at the trot in a straight line by their usual riders. Two small pressure mats, attached to the noseband over the nasal bone and the mandibular rami, collected force (N) and pressure (kPa) data from four noseband types (Cavesson/Swedish/Flash/Drop) each adjusted to five tightness levels (2.0/1.5/1.0/0.5/0.0 finger equivalents) based on the use of a taper gauge. Noseband tightness and types were compared using Friedman's analyses with post hoc Wilcoxon tests (p ≤ 0.01). Results: Pressures (median and [25th and 75th percentiles]) and forces increased with tightness for all noseband types with higher mean pressures consistently recorded on the mandibles (Cavesson: 9.1 [5.0, 12.5] kPa, Swedish: 10.5 [6.3, 14.9] kPa, Flash: 8.0 [3.6, 15.2] kPa) than the nasal bones (Cavesson: 2.8 [1.1, 4.7] kPa, Swedish: 4.3 [3.1, 7.4] kPa, Flash: 4.9 [3.0, 7.3] kPa, p ≤ 0.002). None of the measured nasal pressures or forces differed significantly between tightness levels of 2.0 (1.6 [0.6, 3.6] kPa) and 1.5 fingers (2.9 [1.3, 4.1] kPa), but these values significantly increased from 1.0 (3.1 [1.5, 4.9] kPa), 0.5 (4.2 [2.3, 6.2] kPa), and 0.0 finger tightness (6.4 [3.8, 10.3] kPa) for most variables (p ≤ 0.004). No differences were found in mean/maximal nasal and mandibular pressures when fitted with a Cavesson or Swedish noseband. Conclusions: Behavioural and physiological parameters were not measured. Conclusions: Nasal and mandibular pressures increased with noseband tightness, with 1.0 finger laxity or less associated with significantly and incrementally higher pressures than 1.5 or 2.0 finger tightness.
© 2024 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-09-21 PubMed ID: 39305099DOI: 10.1111/evj.14420Google 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 study explores how the type and tightness of a horse’s noseband can affect the pressure applied to its face while trotting. The research shows that the level of pressure increases with noseband tightness, and there was consistent higher pressure recorded on the horse’s mandible region across various noseband types.

Research Methodology

  • The research methodology was built around in vivo experiments involving eight high-level dressage horses. The horses were ridden at trot in a straight line by their respective usual riders.
  • The study made use of two small pressure mats attached to the noseband over the nasal bone and the mandibular rami to collate force and pressure data.
  • The noseband types in the study were Cavesson, Swedish, Flash, and Drop, with tortional adjustments based on the use of a taper gauge.
  • The integrity and comparative accuracy of the experimental data were guaranteed by using Friedman’s analyses, supported by post hoc Wilcoxon tests.

Key Findings

  • The results confirmed that pressures and forces increased relative to noseband tightness for all noseband types.
  • A consistent pattern of higher mean pressures was recorded on the mandibles than the nasal bones for all noseband types. The Swedish noseband recorded the highest pressure.
  • No significant difference was found in nasal pressures or forces between noseband tightness levels of 2.0 and 1.5 fingers. But a significant incremental increase in these values was observed with a decrease in tightness levels from 1.0, 0.5, and 0.0 finger.
  • There was no observable difference in mean/maximal nasal and mandibular pressures when fitted with either a Cavesson or Swedish noseband.

Conclusion

  • The evident conclusion from the research is that nasal and mandibular pressures increased alongside noseband tightness for trotting horses. Tightness of 1.0 finger laxity or less was associated with significantly and incrementally higher pressures than 1.5 or 2.0 finger tightness.
  • However, the research did not account for behavioural and physiological parameters, indicating a potential area for further study.

Cite This Article

APA
MacKechnie-Guire R, Murray R, Williams JM, Nixon J, Fisher M, Fisher D, Walker V, Clayton HM. (2024). Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the horse’s face at trot. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14420

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

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

Grant Funding

  • British Equestrian Federation
  • The Worshipful Company of Saddlers
  • Canadian Sport Horse Association
  • Hartpury University
  • World Horse Welfare

References

This article includes 29 references
  1. Sells P. The tack room. The story of saddlery and harness in 27 equine disciplines.. Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books; 2018.
  2. 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.
  3. McGreevy P, 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.
  4. Casey V, McGreevy P, 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Uldahl M, Clayton H. Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses.. Equine Vet J 2018;51(2):154–162.
  7. Visser E, Kuypers M, Stam J, Riedstra B. Practice of noseband use and intentions towards behavioural change in Dutch equestrians.. Animals 2019;9(12):1131.
  8. 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.
  9. Clayton H, Williams J. Know your noseband: an exploration of factors that influence riders' choice of noseband.. J Vet Behav 2022;47:1–11.
  10. Doherty O, Casey V, McGreevy P, Arkins S. Noseband use in equestrian sports—an international study.. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0169060.
  11. Weller D, Franklin S, Shea G, White P, Fenner K, Wilson B. The reported use of nosebands in racing and equestrian pursuits.. Animals 2020;10(5):776.
  12. . 24 Draft recommendations.. 2023.
  13. . Statement on the use of horses for sport.. 2023.
  14. Rose M. The horsemasters notebook.. London: Peter Barker Publishing Ltd; 1972.
  15. Merkies K, Copelin C, Small N, Young J. Noseband fit: measurements and perceptions of Canadian equestrians.. Animals 2022;12(19):2685.
  16. Pfau T, Witte T, Wilson A. A method for deriving displacement data during cyclical movement using an inertial sensor.. J Exp Biol 2005;208(Pt 13):2503–2514.
  17. Khumsap S, Clayton H, Lanovaz J, Bouchey M. Effect of walking velocity on forelimb kinematics and kinetics.. Equine Vet J 2002;34(S34):325–329.
  18. Robilliard J, Pfau T, Wilson A. Gait characterisation and classification in horses.. J Exp Biol 2007;210(Pt 2):187–197.
  19. Dyson S, Van Dijk J. Application of a ridden horse ethogram to video recordings of 21 horses before and after diagnostic analgesia: reduction in behaviour scores.. Equine Vet Educ 2018;32(S10):104–111.
  20. Kimberlin L, Ruoff L. Atlas of clinical imaging and anatomy of the equine head.. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell; 2017.
  21. von Peinen K, Wiestner T, von Rechenberg B, Weishaupt M. Relationship between saddle pressure measurements and clinical signs of saddle soreness at the withers.. Equine Vet J 2010;42(S38):650–653.
  22. Bystrom A, Stalfelt A, Egenvall A, Von Peinen K, Morgan K, Roepstorff L. Influence of girth strap placement and panel flocking material on the saddle pressure pattern during riding of horses.. Equine Vet J 2010;42(S38):502–509.
  23. Murray R, Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. Reducing peak pressures under the saddle panel at the level of the 10th to 13th thoracic vertebrae may be associated with improved gait features, even when saddles are fitted to published guidelines.. J Equine Vet Sci 2017;54:60–69.
  24. Murray R, Mackechnie‐Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. Reducing peak pressures under the saddle at thoracic vertebrae 10‐13 is associated with alteration in jump kinematics.. Comp Exerc Physiol 2018;14(4):239–247.
  25. Murray R, Mackechnie‐Guire R, Fisher M, Fairfax V. Could pressure distribution under race‐exercise saddles affect limb kinematics and lumbosacral flexion in the galloping racehorse?. J Equine Vet Sci 2019;81:102795.
  26. Le K, Madsen B, Barth P, Ksander G, Angell J, Vistnes L. An in‐depth look at pressure sores using monolithic silicon pressure sensors.. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984;74:745–754.
  27. Chang W, Seireg A. A prediction of ulcer formation on the skin.. Med Hypotheses 1999;53:141–144.
  28. Pedowitz RA, Gershuni DH, Schmidt AH, Fridén J, Rydevik BL, Hargens AR. Muscle injury induced beneath and distal to a pneumatic tourniquet: a quantitative animal study of effects of tourniquet pressure and duration.. J Hand Surg Am 1991;16(4):610–621.
  29. 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.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.