Noseband Use in Equestrian Sports – An International Study

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.

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

“…When re-evaluated prior to the final round of competition, the prevalence of ulcers at the lip commissures had not changed, and their Different superscripts indicate significantly different odds ratios. 1 All observations used for modelling 2491 observations included in model Hosmer-Lemeshow-Goodness of fit P = 0.87.…”

“…Table 2 shows the breakdown by discipline. The numbers of horses with specific spurassociated lesions was as follows: scars (18), white hairs (8), exudation (6), lacerations (6), blood (6) and camouflage (1). These numbers were too low to analyse further.…”

“…However, information is needed relating the use of different types of tack with the occurrence of injuries to guide the development of rules to protect the horse. Previous studies of noseband tightness found 44% of horses competing in dressage, eventing and hunter performance had very tight nosebands with significant differences between disciplines; nosebands were tightest on eventers and loosest on performance hunters . Tight nosebands have been reported to enhance sensitivity to rein aids , but the effects of noseband type and tightness have not been associated with oral ulceration or other injuries.…”

A Photographic Methodology for Analyzing Bit Position Under Rein Tension

“…Six dressage and eventing horses (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17), from the Presidential Military Sports Center in Mexico, of various ages (mean 9.33 ± 1.4 years), heights (162.5 ± 5.62 cm), breeds (three Warmbloods and three S. Gertudis), sex (four geldings and two mares) were recruited into the study. These horses were fitted with snaffle bridles and a French crank-style cavesson and bit 5.…”

“…Where the mechanical operation of bit cheeks has been previously described [1], the effects of mouthpiece features, such as joint-loops, links, and ports on the tongue and palate remain poorly understood by the everyday rider. A horse that seeks relief from pressure points, produced by design features on a bit, is likely to use his tongue to do so [12] yet tight nosebands, which are a common occurrence throughout the equestrian sport [14], make it difficult for the horse to open the mouth, and hinder oral behaviours. Therefore, it is important to understand pressure points from the bit that affect the tongue.…”