FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior,...
PloS one2016; 11(5); e0154179; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179

The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses.

Abstract: Restrictive nosebands are common in equestrian sport. This is concerning, as recent evidence suggests that very tight nosebands can cause a physiological stress response, and may compromise welfare. The objective of the current study was to investigate relationships that noseband tightness has with oral behavior and with physiological changes that indicate a stress response, such as increases in eye temperature (measured with infrared thermography) and heart rate and decreases in heart rate variability (HRV). Horses (n = 12) wearing a double bridle and crank noseband, as is common in dressage at elite levels, were randomly assigned to four treatments: unfastened noseband (UN), conventional area under noseband (CAUN) with two fingers of space available under the noseband, half conventional area under noseband (HCAUN) with one finger of space under the noseband, and no area under the noseband (NAUN). During the tightest treatment (NAUN), horse heart rate increased (P = 0.003), HRV decreased (P < 0.001), and eye temperature increased (P = 0.011) compared with baseline readings, indicating a physiological stress response. The behavioral results suggest some effects from bits alone but the chief findings are the physiological readings that reflect responses to the nosebands at their tightest. Chewing decreased during the HCAUN (P < 0.001) and NAUN (P < 0.001) treatments. Yawning rates were negligible in all treatments. Similarly, licking was eliminated by the NAUN treatment. Following the removal of the noseband and double bridle during the recovery session, yawning (P = 0.015), swallowing (P = 0.003), and licking (P < 0.001) significantly increased compared with baseline, indicating a post-inhibitory rebound response. This suggests a rise in motivation to perform these behaviors and implies that their inhibition may place horses in a state of deprivation. It is evident that a very tight noseband can cause physiological stress responses and inhibit the expression of oral behaviors.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2016-05-03 PubMed ID: 27140187PubMed Central: PMC4854461DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179Google 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.

This study investigates the relationship between the tightness of a horse’s noseband (a common piece of equestrian equipment) and its impact on the horse’s stress levels and behaviors. The research found that very tight nosebands can lead to physiological stress responses and inhibit natural oral behaviors in horses.

Research Methodology

  • The research involved 12 horses wearing a double bridle and crank noseband, a type of gear typically used in elite dressage events.
  • The horses were randomly assigned to four different treatments: unfastened noseband (UN), conventional area under noseband (CAUN) with two fingers of space available under the noseband, half conventional area under noseband (HCAUN) with one finger of space under the noseband, and no area under the noseband (NAUN).

Measurements and Observations

  • The researchers measured physiological changes indicative of stress responses. This includes increased heart rate, decreased heart rate variability (HRV), and increased eye temperature (measured using infrared thermography).
  • Behaviors like chewing, yawning, and licking were also monitored to observe if there were any variations based on the tightness of the noseband.
  • On removal of the noseband, there was a rebound in yawning, swallowing, and licking compared to their baseline rates, suggesting a rise in the motivation to perform these suppressed behaviors. This suggested that inhibiting these actions possibly placed the horses in a state of deprivation.

Research Findings

  • During the NAUN treatment (no area under the noseband), the horses’ heart rate increased and HRV decreased compared to their baselines, indicating a physiological stress response.
  • Eye temperature also increased during NAUN treatment, underlining the physiological stress placed on the horses.
  • Chewing decreased significantly during the HCAUN (one finger of space under the noseband) and NAUN treatments, suggesting that the noseband tightness inhibited normal oral behaviors.
  • Licking was entirely eliminated by the NAUN treatment, further confirming that extreme tightness of a noseband can negatively impact normal horse behaviors.
  • Yawning rates were negligible across all treatments.

Implications of Findings

  • The findings suggest that very tight nosebands, commonly used in equestrian sports, can cause physiological stress responses in horses and inhibit their natural oral behaviors.
  • This has welfare implications suggesting a need for a review in guidelines for the use of nosebands in equestrian practices and possibly the design of this equipment to ensure the comfort and well-being of horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy P. (2016). The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses. PLoS One, 11(5), e0154179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154179

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 5
Pages: e0154179

Researcher Affiliations

Fenner, Kate
  • Kandoo Equine, Towrang, New South Wales, Australia.
Yoon, Samuel
  • Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
White, Peter
  • Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Starling, Melissa
  • Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
McGreevy, Paul
  • Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Behavior, Animal
  • Body Temperature
  • Eye
  • Heart Rate
  • Horses / physiology
  • Restraint, Physical / physiology
  • Software
  • Stress, Physiological

Conflict of Interest Statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 26 references
  1. McGreevy PD, McLean AN. Equitation Science. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. 314 p..
  2. Fédération Equestre Internationale. Dressage Rules. Lausanne, Switzerland: FEI; 2015. [20 August, 2015]. 25:[Available from: https://www.fei.org/sites/default/files/DRE-Rules_2015_GAapproved_black.pdf.
  3. Manfredi J, Clayton HM, Derksen FJ. Effects of different bits and bridles on frequency of induced swallowing in cantering horses. Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology 2005;2(4):241–4.
    doi: 10.1079/ecp200569google scholar: lookup
  4. ISES. Position Statement on Restrictive Noseband. International Society for Equitation Science; 2012. [20 August, 2015]. Available from: http://www.equitationscience.com/documents/Statements/RestrictiveNosebands_Jan2012.pdf.
  5. 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 2010;5(4):187–95.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.002google scholar: lookup
  6. 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(3):142–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.001google scholar: lookup
  7. Casey V, McGreevy PD, O'Muiris E, Doherty O. A preliminary report on estimating the pressures exerted by a crank noseband in the horse. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 2013;8(6):479–84.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.06.003google scholar: lookup
  8. Freire R, Buckley P, Cooper JJ. Effects of different forms of exercise on post inhibitory rebound and unwanted behaviour in stabled horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 2009;41(5):487–92.
    doi: 10.2746/095777309x383883pubmed: 19642410google scholar: lookup
  9. Nicol C. Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 1987;35:1709–19.
  10. McGreevy PD. Right under our noses. Equine Veterinary Education 2015;27(10):503–4.
  11. Yarnell K, Hall C, Royle C, Walker SL. Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing. Physiology & Behavior 2015;143:51–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.040pubmed: 25725117google scholar: lookup
  12. Stewart M, Stafford KJ, Dowling SK, Schaefer AL, Webster JR. Eye temperature and heart rate variability of calves disbí·­ with or without local anaesthetic. Physiology & Behavior 2008;93(4–5):789–97.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.11.044pubmed: 18177678google scholar: lookup
  13. Quick JS, Warren-Smith AK. Preliminary investigations of horses' (Equus caballus) responses to different bridles during foundation training. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2009;4(4):169–76.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.12.001google scholar: lookup
  14. Visser EK, van Reenen CG, van der Werf JTN, Schilder MBH, Knaap JH, Barneveld A. Heart rate and heart rate variability during a novel object test and a handling test in young horses. Physiology & Behavior 2002;76(2):289–96.
    doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00698-4pubmed: 12044602google scholar: lookup
  15. Rietmann TR, Stuart AEA, Bernasconi P, Staï¬her M, Auer JA, Weishaupt MA. Assessment of mental stress in warmblood horses: heart rate variability in comparison to heart rate and selected behavioural parameters. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2004;88(1):121–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.016google scholar: lookup
  16. Ashley FH, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies. Equine Veterinary Journal 2005;37(6):565–75.
    doi: 10.2746/042516405775314826pubmed: 16295937google scholar: lookup
  17. Von Borell E, Langbein J, Despres G, Hansen S, Leterrier C, Marchant-Forde J. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals—A review. Physiology & Behavior 2007;92(3):293–316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.007pubmed: 17320122google scholar: lookup
  18. Pierard M, Hall C, König von Borstel U, Hawson LA, McLean A, Averis A. Evolving protocols for research in equitation science. Jorunal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications nad Research 2015;10(3):255–66.
  19. Stewart M, Webster JR, Verkerk GA, Schaefer AL, Colyn JJ, Stafford KJ. Non-invasive measurement of stress in dairy cows using infrared thermography. Physiology & Behavior 2007;92(3):520–5.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.034pubmed: 17555778google scholar: lookup
  20. Valera M, Bartolome E, Jose Sanchez M, Molina A, Cook N, Schaefer A. Changes in Eye Temperature and Stress Assessment in Horses During Show Jumping Competitions. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2012;32(12):827–30.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2012.03.005google scholar: lookup
  21. Dai F, Cogi NH, Heinzl EUL, Dalla Costa E, Canali E, Minero M. Validation of a fear test in sport horses using infrared thermography. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 2014.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.12.001google scholar: lookup
  22. Webster AJF. Animal welfare: a cool eye towards Eden. London: Blackwell Science; 1994.
  23. Fureix C, Gorecka-Bruzda A, Gautier E, Hausberger M. Cooccurrence of yawning and stereotypic behaviour in horses (Equus caballus). ISRN Zoology 2011;2011:271209-Article ID 10.5402/2011/271209.
    doi: 10.5402/2011/271209google scholar: lookup
  24. Greco M, Baenningre R, Govern J. On the context of yawning: when, where, and why?. The Psychological Record 1993;42(2):175.
  25. Gallup AC, Gallup GG. Yawning and thermoregulation. Physiology & Behavior 2008;95:10–6.
    pubmed: 18550130
  26. Miller ML, Gallup AC, Vogel AR, Clark AB. Handling stress initially inhibits, but then potentiates yawning in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Animal Behaviour 2010;80(4):615–9.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.