Animals (Apr 2020)
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.
Keywords
