The Reported Use of Nosebands in Racing and Equestrian Pursuits.
Authors: Weller Dominic, Franklin Samantha, Shea Glenn, White Peter, Fenner Kate, Wilson Bethany, Wilkins Cristina, McGreevy Paul
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Noseband Use in Equestrian Sport A survey of 3,040 equestrian professionals and owners reveals significant variation in noseband selection and application practices across disciplines, with Plain Cavesson (46.6%) and Hanoverian (24.8%) designs predominating amongst the 2,332 respondents actively using nosebands. Motivations for noseband use were remarkably distributed across three categories—anatomical reasons (such as preventing tongue displacement; 29.5%), consequential aims (primarily aesthetic improvement; 30.6%), and passive compliance with competition regulations (32.9%)—suggesting that practitioners often lack a clear functional rationale for their choice. Concerning findings include that nearly one-fifth of respondents (18.6%) reported physical or behavioural complications, with hair loss being most prevalent (39.9% of those experiencing problems), whilst crank-system nosebands, used by 28.9% of respondents, showed association with increased complication rates despite their capacity to severely restrict jaw and tongue movement. Monitoring practices varied widely, with most handlers checking noseband tightness at the bridge of the nose (62.1%), though a substantial minority (21.5%) assessed tightness under the chin—an approach with markedly different implications for pressure distribution. This large-scale evidence base underscores the need for discipline-specific guidance on noseband selection and fit, professional education regarding functional versus regulatory requirements, and reconsideration of restrictive designs that may compromise equine welfare without clear performance benefit.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Monitor noseband tightness carefully at the bridge of nose (most common checking location); excessive tightness from crank systems may compromise welfare and increase complications
- •Be aware that 18.6% of noseband users report physical or behavioural issues—regularly inspect for hair loss and signs of discomfort under the noseband
- •Consider discipline-specific noseband selection and ensure practices align with stated welfare objectives rather than defaulting to restrictive designs
Key Findings
- •Plain Cavesson (46.6%) and Hanoverian (24.8%) nosebands were most commonly used across 2,332 respondents
- •Reasons for noseband use were evenly distributed across Anatomical (29.5%), Consequential (30.6%), and Passive (32.9%) categories
- •18.6% of respondents reported at least one physical or behavioural complication, with hair loss being most common (39.9% of complications)
- •Crank systems used by 28.9% of respondents showed increased association with reported complications