Abstract: 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.
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.
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 article investigates how nosebands are used in equestrian sports and the possible negative consequences for horses if nosebands are too tight. The study gathered data from various horse riding competitions and classified horses according to the noseband’s tightness level.
Methodology
The study compiled data on the type, position, width, and tightness of nosebands from 750 horses participating in eventing, dressage, and performance hunter competitions in Ireland, England, and Belgium.
Data was collected immediately before or after the horses’ performances.
The researchers used the ISES taper gauge to classify the observed noseband tightness according to the number of ‘fingers’ that could fit under it at the nasal planum.
Six groups were created based on the number of fingers that could fit under the noseband: greater than 2 fingers; 2 fingers; 1.5 fingers; 1 finger; 0.5 fingers; zero fingers.
A calliper was used to measure the width of the noseband and its position relative to the facial crest.
Results
The data was not normally distributed, and statistical tests like Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney were used for analysis.
The study found that 44% of horses fell into the zero fingers classification, indicating very tight nosebands, while only 7% were in the two fingers classification, reflecting recommended tightness.
Significant differences in noseband tightness emerged between disciplines, with the tightest nosebands measured among eventers then dressage horses, and the loosest nosebands among performance hunters.
Age had no significant effect on noseband tightness, with the horses’ ages under study ranging from 4 to 19 years.
Flash nosebands were the most commonly used and were significantly tighter than cavesson, drop noseband, and Micklem.
Noseband width varied from 10 to 50 mm, while noseband position (measured as the distance between the facial crest and upper noseband margin) varied from 0 to 70 mm.
Conclusion
The high proportion of extremely tight nosebands raised concerns about potential adverse behavioural and physiological effects on horses, both short-term and long-term.
Despite the current lack of data on these potential consequences, the study’s findings remain concerning. There is a need for further research and possibly tighter regulations on noseband usage in equestrian sports to ensure the welfare of horses.
Cite This Article
APA
Doherty O, Casey V, McGreevy P, Arkins S.
(2017).
Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports – An International Study.
PLoS One, 12(1), e0169060.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169060
Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Casey, Vincent
Department of Physics, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
McGreevy, Paul
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Arkins, Sean
Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
MeSH Terms
Adult
Animals
Belgium
England
Female
Horses / physiology
Humans
International Cooperation
Ireland
Male
Physical Conditioning, Animal / instrumentation
Reproducibility of Results
Sports
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
This article includes 35 references
McGreevy P, McLean A. Equitation Science. Wiley-Blackwell;2010.
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. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2012;7:142–148.
Casey V, McGreevy P, O' Muiris E, Doherty O. A preliminary report on estimating the pressures exerted by a crank noseband in the horse. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, Clinical Applications and Research 2013;8:479–484.
Anon. Horsemanship for the Pony Club. The British Horse Society; London, UK;1956.
Stecken F. A book of dressage: training the horse and rider. Arco Publishing Company Inc., New York, NY;1977.
Klimke R. Basic Training of the Young Horse, London, J.A. Allen & Company Limited;1994.
Huntington P, Myers J, Owens E. Horse Sense: the guide to horse care in Australia and New Zealand. 2nd Ed Landlinks Press, Victoria, Australia;2004.
Kapitzke G. Bit and the Reins: Developing Good Contact and Sensitive hands. London, J. A. Allen;2004.
Muir S, Sly D. The Complete Horse and Rider. Leicestershire, UK, Anness Publishing Ltd;2012.
FEI (International Equestrian Federation). Code of Conduct for the Welfare of the Horse;2013. http://www.fei.org/system/files/Code_of_Conduct_Welfare_Horse_1Jan2013_0.pdf
Goody P. Horse Anatomy A Practical Approach to Equine Structure. London, Allen, J.A.;2004.
Micklem W. Complete Horse Riding Manual. London, Penguin; 2003.
Randle H, McGreevy P. The effect of noseband tightness on rein tension in the ridden horse. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2013;8:e18–e19.
Mclean AN, McGreevy PD. Ethical equitation: Capping the price horses pay for human glory. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2010a;5:203–209.
Mclean AN, McGreevy PD. Horse-training techniques that may defy the principles of learning theory and compromise welfare. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2010b;5:187–195.
McGreevy PD. Right under our noses. Equine Veterinary Education 2015;27(10):503–504.
ISES (The International Society for Equitation Science). ISES position statement on restrictive nosebands; 2012. http://www.equitationscience.com/documents/Statements/RestrictiveNosebands_Jan2012.pdf
Ekberg J, Timpka T, Ramel H, Valter L. Injury rates and risk-factors associated with eventing: A total cohort study of injury events among adult Swedish eventing athletes. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 2011;18:261–267.
Heuschmann G. Tug of war: Classical versus “modern” dressage. Schondorf: Wu Wei Verlag;2006.
Pospisil K, Potz I, Peham C. The Effect of Noseband Tightness on Tensile Forces While Using Side Reins on Horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 2014;46(S46):46–47.
Hockenhull J, Creighton E. Equipment and training risk factors associated with ridden behaviour problems in UK leisure horses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2012:36–42.
Ladewig J. Human safety and horse welfare-two sides of the same coin. Journal of veterinary behavior: Clinical applications and research 2011;6(5):292–293.
Manfredi JM, Rosenstein D, Lanovaz JL, Nauwelaerts S, Clayton HM. Fluoroscopic study of oral behaviours in response to the presence of a bit and the effects of rein tension. Comparative Exercise Physiology 2009;6:143–148.
Shaw JA, Murray DG. The relationship between tourniquet pressure and underlying soft-tissue pressure in the thigh. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64:1148–52.
Rydevik B, Lundborg G. Permeability of Intraneural Microvessels and Perineurium Following Acute, Graded Experimental Nerve Compression. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 1977;11:179–187.
Quain A, Ward MP, Mullan S. What Would You Do? Types of Ethical Challenging Situations Depicted in Vignettes Published in the Veterinary Literature from 1990 to 2020. Vet Sci 2021 Dec 22;9(1).