The Reported Use of Nosebands in Racing and Equestrian Pursuits

Abstract

This article reports on the results of a survey designed to explore the types of nosebands that owners, riders and trainers use in training and competition, their reasons for using nosebands, the design preferences in different disciplines and approaches to noseband tightness and monitoring, as well as the incidence of negative impacts related to noseband usage. Respondents (n = 3040) were asked to specify the type of noseband they were currently using and to rate how effective they were in achieving these stated reasons. Respondents who used nosebands (n = 2332) most commonly used Plain Cavesson (46.6%, n = 1087) and Hanoverian (24.8%, n = 579) nosebands. The reasons provided in the survey for noseband usage were grouped into three broad, mutually exclusive categories: Anatomical; Consequential and Passive. Responses across these categories were fairly evenly distributed overall: Anatomical (29.5%, n = 1501), Consequential (30.6%, n = 1560), Passive (32.9%, n = 1673) and other reasons (7.0%, n = 358). Across all respondents (n = 2332), the most common Anatomical reason given was to prevent the horse’s tongue from moving over the bit (20.8%, n = 485), the most common Consequential reason was to improve the appearance of the horse (20.4%, n = 476), with aligning with the rules of the sport (30.2%, n = 705) the most popular Passive reason. Of the respondents who answered the question of checking noseband tightness (n = 2295), most reported checking noseband tightness at the bridge of the nose (62.1%, n = 1426), some (10.4%, n = 238) reported checking for tightness on the side of the face and others under the chin (21.5%, n = 496). This survey also revealed some of the potential issues associated with noseband use, with 18.6% (n = 434) reporting at least one physical or behavioural complication. The most common complication was hair loss under the noseband (39.9%, n = 173). Crank systems were reported to be used by 28.9% (n = 665) of respondents. This is of concern as these devices can be excessively tightened, minimising jaw and tongue movement and may compromise horse welfare. Indeed, the current data in our study show that these devices are associated with an increased risk of complications being reported. Against the backdrop of potential harm to horse welfare associated with restrictive nosebands, this report may serve as a guide for future regulations and research. It helps improve our understanding of noseband preferences and their use in different disciplines.

Prevalence and Distribution of Lesions in the Nasal Bones and Mandibles of a Sample of 144 Riding Horses

“…A recent survey of horse owners revealed that 9% had observed swelling of the area under the noseband, 14.3% had observed soreness in the area under the noseband, and 39.9% had observed hair loss in the area under the noseband [25]. Of the subset of current horses suitably pigmented for assessment, 64.5% had white hairs in the nasal bone region, and 15.7% in the mandibular region.…”

Identifying Sources of Potential Bias When Using Online Survey Data to Explore Horse Training, Management, and Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review

“…An additional article [ 34 ] authored by the current research group and meeting our inclusion criteria was not identified by the online search but found during hand searching. The search was repeated on 1 July 2020 and two further articles [ 15 , 35 ], one of which was authored by the current research group, that were published after the initial literature search was conducted were also included, leaving a final set of 14 articles for full review and quality assessment.…”

“…In recent years, a series of ridden horse welfare issues have been prominent across the media, risking their SLO. These include the use of Rolkur [ 13 ], whip use in racing [ 14 ], the use of restrictive nosebands in various sporting disciplines [ 15 ], and wastage within the breeding and racing industries [ 16 ]. Some of these (such as restrictive nosebands) reflect the perceived need to reduce unwelcome behaviour while others (such as wastage) directly result from unwelcome behaviour.…”

The Reported Use of Tongue-Ties and Nosebands in Thoroughbred and Standardbred Horse Racing—A Pilot Study

“…This report reflects the dual purpose of a survey presented to a variety of respondents. Previously, the current researchers explored only the use of NBs across equestrian sports and racing [19] because the initial response rate to TT questions was considered poor. Broadly, our first report showed that NBs were used equally for anatomical, consequential and passive reasons [19].…”

“…Previously, the current researchers explored only the use of NBs across equestrian sports and racing [19] because the initial response rate to TT questions was considered poor. Broadly, our first report showed that NBs were used equally for anatomical, consequential and passive reasons [19]. The study also identified issues with the preferred sites for checking NB tightness (with many respondents checking at sub-optimal locations such as at the horse's cheeks), as well as identifying that so-called crank nosebands were particularly problematic, with their use increasing the likelihood of respondents reporting a complication [19].…”