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.

Fig 1. ISES Taper Gauge designed to allow measurement of approximate noseband tightness.

At standard recommended noseband tightness, the taper gauge can be easily inserted beneath the noseband as far as the 2 Finger notch.

Fig 2. Use of TB callipers to measure the width of the noseband (mm).

Fig 3. Use of TB callipers to measure distance (mm) between rostral margin of facial crest and caudal margin of noseband.

Fig 4. Frequency of usage of five different noseband types.

Fig 5. Distribution of noseband widths.

Fig 6. Boxplot of noseband width and interquartile range for six competition types.

Widths differ significantly except where they share a superscript. Maximum and minimum values are indicated by ‘x’, with whiskers identifying the 5% and 95% values. The large rectangles represent 25–75% of values, with the median value indicated by the thick crossline, and mean values by the small square symbol.

Fig 7. Frequency distribution of distances (mm) between the rostral margin of the facial crest and the caudal margin of the noseband (n = 619).

Fig 8. Boxplot and interquartile range of distance from rostral margin of facial crest to dorsal margin of noseband (mm) for six competition types.

Maximum and minimum values are indicated by ‘x’, with whiskers identifying the 5% and 95% values. The large rectangles represent 25–75% of values, with the median value indicated by the thick crossline, and mean values by the small square symbol.

Fig 9. Distribution of noseband tightness measurements found in horses (n = 750) competing in the disciplines of dressage, eventing and performance hunter.

Fig 10. Median and inter-quartile range measures of noseband tightness level (Fingers) in 6 different competition types.

Tightness levels differ significantly except where they share the same superscript. Maximum and minimum values are indicated by ‘x’, with whiskers identifying the 5% and 95% values. The large rectangles represent 25–75% of values, with the median value indicated by the thick crossline, and mean values by the small square symbol.

Fig 11. Noseband tightness measured in five different noseband types.

Tightness levels differ significantly except where they share the same superscript. Maximum and minimum values are indicated by ‘x’, with whiskers identifying the 5% and 95% values. The large rectangles represent 25–75% of values, with the median value indicated by the thick crossline, and mean values by the small square symbol.