Fluoroscopic study of oral behaviours in response to the presence of a bit and the effects of rein tension

Manfredi, Jane M.; Rosenstein, Diana S.; Lanovaz, Joel L.; Nauwelaerts, Sandra; Clayton, Hilary M.

doi:10.1017/s1755254010000036

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the mouth closes, the pressure is relieved immediately, which conforms to the principle of training by negative reinforcement [13]. A very tight noseband exerts pressure continuously and acts by mechanically preventing the horse from opening the mouth rather than training the horse to hold the bit quietly with only small movements of the jaws and tongue [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses

Uldahl

Clayton²

2018

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses

Uldahl

Clayton²

2018

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as is clear from the simple 1D model developed above, the local tissue curvature determines the degree, if any, to which this tensile force couples to the underlying tissue via the variable normal force component. Thus while tension might be the obvious parameter choice for noseband tightness, particularly since bridle rein tension technology is already well established in equitation science [20–22], it is the normal force component of this tension which acts on the underlying tissue and is therefore of more interest from a noseband-nose interaction perspective. It is also worth noting that rein tension gauges are generally linked into the rein or cheek piece, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noseband tightness is difficult to assess in horses participating in equestrian sports such as dressage, show jumping and three-day-eventing. There is growing concern that nosebands are commonly tightened to such an extent as to restrict normal equine behaviour and possibly cause injury. In the absence of a clear agreed definition of noseband tightness, a simple model of the equine nose-noseband interface environment was developed in order to guide further studies in this area. The normal force component of the noseband tensile force was identified as the key contributor to sub-noseband tissue compression. The model was used to inform the design of a digital tightness gauge which could reliably measure the normal force component of the noseband tensile force. A digital tightness gauge was developed to measure this parameter under nosebands fitted to bridled horses. Results are presented for field tests using two prototype designs. Prototype version three was used in field trial 1 (n = 15, frontal nasal plane sub-noseband site). Results of this trial were used to develop an ergonomically designed prototype, version 4, which was tested in a second field trial (n = 12, frontal nasal plane and lateral sub-noseband site). Nosebands were set to three tightness settings in each trial as judged by a single rater using an International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) taper gauge. Normal forces in the range 7–95 N were recorded at the frontal nasal plane while a lower range 1–28 N was found at the lateral site for the taper gauge range used in the trials. The digital tightness gauge was found to be simple to use, reliable, and safe and its use did not agitate the animals in any discernable way. A simple six point tightness scale is suggested to aid regulation implementation and the control of noseband tightness using normal force measurement as the objective tightness discriminant.

show abstract

“…Mouth-opening is thought to be a manifestation of oral discomfort [24] and can be a response to increased rein tension [25]. Possible adverse consequences of excessive tightening of the noseband include restriction of mouth-opening and other normal behaviours [2], pain, tissue damage, buccal ulceration/laceration as a consequence of buccal mucosa being pressed against the sharp edges of premolar teeth [26] and some restriction on breathing [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports – An International Study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Fluoroscopic study of oral behaviours in response to the presence of a bit and the effects of rein tension

Cited by 39 publications

References 12 publications

Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses

Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses

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

Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports – An International Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About