Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of horses for sport is under scrutiny due to evidence that common practices such as tight nosebands may impair horse welfare. Restrictive nosebands prevent horses from performing normal comfort behaviour such as coughing and yawning. To address these concerns, the International Society for Equitation Science (ISES) developed a noseband tightness-checking device, the ISES “taper gauge,” along with a validated method that assesses how far the device can be inserted beneath the noseband at the dorsal midline of the nasal planum. However, citing concerns about the reliability of dorsal midline measurements, MacKechnie-Guire and co-authors evaluated three alternative sites: lateral to the nasal bone, the maxilla, and the mandible. They concluded that the lateral maxilla was a suitable substitute for the dorsal midline. The methods and interpretation of the findings of this study have raised concerns that measuring noseband laxity at the lateral maxilla may underestimate tightness because of the substantial volume of soft tissue at that location. This could expose horses to the welfare risks associated with overly tight nosebands. This commentary outlines the authors’ concerns and offers recommendations for how future studies might address avoid the issues raised here.

Vision, hearing, olfaction, taste, and touch comprise the sensory modalities of most vertebrates. With these senses, the animal receives information about its environment. How this information is organized, interpreted, and experienced is known as perception. The study of the sensory abilities of animals and their implications for behavior is central not only to ethology but also to animal welfare. Sensory ability, perception, and behavior are closely linked. Horses and humans share the five most common sensory modalities, however, their ranges and capacities differ, so that horses are unlikely to perceive their surroundings in a similar manner to humans. Understanding equine perceptual abilities and their differences is important when horses and human interact, as these abilities are pivotal for the response of the horse to any changes in its surroundings. This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the sensory abilities of horses. The information is discussed within an evolutionary context and also includes a practical perspective, outlining potential ways to mitigate risks of injuries and enhance positive horse-human interactions. The equine sensory apparatus includes panoramic visual capacities with acuities similar to those of red-green color-blind humans as well as aural abilities that, in some respects exceed human hearing and a highly developed sense of smell, all of which influence how horses react in various situations. Equine sensitivity to touch has been studied surprisingly sparingly despite tactile stimulation being the major interface of horse training. We discuss the potential use of sensory enrichment/positive sensory stimulation to improve the welfare of horses in various situations e.g. using odors, touch or sound to enrich the environment or to appease horses. In addition, equine perception is affected by factors such as breed, individuality, age, and in some cases even color, emphasizing that different horses may need different types of management. Understanding the sensory abilities of horses is central to the emerging discipline of equitation science, which comprises the gamut of horse-human interactions. Therefore, sensory abilities continue to warrant scientific focus, with more research to enable us to understand different horses and their various needs.

Pressures applied to horses via nosebands are of growing concern. The current study applied noseband pressure to the head of a dead horse. Pressure sensors were placed on the left nasal bone to record pressures as the noseband was progressively tightened. Tightness increased as predicated by holes in the strap of the noseband (as supplied) through eight steps from two fingers’ space, assessed using the standard International Society for Equitation Science Taper Gauge through to zero space. Sensors were also placed at the midline frontal plane and intra-orally at the level of the second premolar tooth. A strain gauge integrated into the noseband recorded tensions within the noseband at each tightness level, and a digital taper gauge under the noseband recorded forces on the face. Pressures at the left nasal bone rose to 403 kPa, while those at the frontal nasal plane reached 185 kPa. Pressures rose rapidly once the noseband was tightened at the equivalent of 1.4 fingers’ space under the noseband. These findings may help to explain cases of bone and skin damage at the noseband location and indicate the need to ensure that nosebands can accommodate more than the equivalent of 1.4 fingers beneath them in the nasal midline. Given that pressures are expected to rise from those reported here when horses wear bits, locomote, and when the reins are under tension, we conclude that the traditional provision of two fingers’ space should be retained.

The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

Euphemisms, anthropomorphisms, and equivocation are established characteristics of traditional equestrian language. ‘Evasion’, ‘resistance’, and ‘disobedience’ are common labels assigned to unwelcome equine behaviours, implying that the horse is at fault for not complying with the human’s cues and expectations. These terms appear to overlook multiple motivations that may directly result in the horse offering unwelcome responses, which may then inadvertently be reinforced. This article revisits some of the anthropocentric inferences in these terms and explores the harmful consequences of such convenient but incorrect labels before proposing a redefinition of ‘conflict behaviour’ in human–horse interactions: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. Addressing how inadequate terms may mask pain, obscure the horse’s motivation, and deflect human culpability, this commentary highlights the merits of a multidisciplinary approach to terminology across equine research. Acknowledging that variables contributing to behaviour can be biological, environmental and anthropogenic, it emphasises the need for more investigation into the relationships between equicentric motivations reflecting equine telos and problematic horse behaviours.

For centuries, a goal of training in many equestrian disciplines has been to straighten the horse, which is considered a key element in achieving its responsiveness and suppleness. However, laterality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in horses and encompasses body asymmetry, motor laterality and sensory laterality. Furthermore, forcibly counterbalancing motor laterality has been considered a cause of psychological imbalance in humans. Perhaps asymmetry and laterality should rather be accepted, with a focus on training psychological and physical balance, coordination and equal strength on both sides instead of enforcing “straightness”. To explore this, we conducted a review of the literature on the function and causes of motor and sensory laterality in horses, especially in horses when trained on the ground or under a rider. The literature reveals that body asymmetry is innate but does not prevent the horse from performing at a high level under a rider. Motor laterality is equally distributed in feral horses, while in domestic horses, age, breed, training and carrying a rider may cause left leg preferences. Most horses initially observe novel persons and potentially threatening objects or situations with their left sensory organs. Pronounced preferences for the use of left sensory organs or limbs indicate that the horse is experiencing increased emotionality or stress, and long-term insufficiencies in welfare, housing or training may result in left shifts in motor and sensory laterality and pessimistic mentalities. Therefore, increasing laterality can be regarded as an indicator for insufficiencies in housing, handling and training. We propose that laterality be recognized as a welfare indicator and that straightening the horse should be achieved by conducting training focused on balance, coordination and equal strength on both sides.

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.

Riders’ asymmetry may cause back pain in both human and equine athletes. This pilot study aimed at documenting in a simple and quick way asymmetry in riders during a simulation of three different riding positions on wooden horseback using load cells applied on the stirrup leathers and identifying possible associations between riders’ asymmetry and their gender, age, level of riding ability, years of riding experience, riding style, motivation of riding, primary discipline and handedness. After completing an interview to obtain the previously mentioned information, 147 riders performed a standardized test on a saddle fixed on a wooden horseback-shaped model. The riding simulation was split into three phases of 1 min each: (1) sit in the saddle, (2) standing in the stirrups and (3) rising trot. The directional force on the left and the right stirrup leathers was recorded every 0.2 s. A paired t-test was performed on the recorded data to test the difference (i.e., asymmetry) in each phase. In phases 1, 2 and 3, 99.3% (53.4% heavier on the right (R)), 98% (52.8% heavier on the left (L)) and 46.3% (51.5% heavier on the left (L)) of the riders were asymmetrical, respectively. Chi-square tests showed a significant association between riding ability and riding experience, but no significant association between reported handedness and calculated leg-sidedness (p > 0.05). Univariate logistic (1: asymmetry, 0: symmetry) regression analysis was performed only on the phase 3 data. One-hand riders were found twice more likely to be asymmetrical than two-hand riders (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.18, Confidence Interval (CI): 1.1–4.29; p = 0.024). This preliminary study confirmed that the majority of the riders are asymmetrical in load distribution on stirrups and suggested the riding style as a possible risk factor for asymmetry.

Many frameworks have assessed the ultimate and ontogenetic underpinnings in the development of object permanence, but less is known about whether individual characteristics, such as sex or training level, as well as proximate factors, such as arousal or emotional state, affect performance in these tasks. The current study investigated horses’ performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks and assessed whether specific ontogenetic, behavioral, and physiological factors were associated with performance. The study included 39 Icelandic horses aged 2–25 years, of varying training levels. The horses were exposed to three tasks: (a) a choice test ( n = 37), (b) a visible displacement task ( n = 35), and (c) an invisible displacement task ( n = 31). 27 horses in the choice test, and 8 horses in the visible displacement task, performed significantly better than expected by chance, while none did so in the invisible displacement task. This was also reflected in their group performance, where horses performed above chance level in the choice task and the visible displacement task only. In the invisible displacement task, the group performed significantly worse than expected by chance indicating that horses persistently chose the side where they had last seen the target. None of the individual characteristics included in the study had an effect on performance. Unsuccessful horses had higher heart rate levels, and expressed more behavior indicative of frustration, likely because of their inability to solve the task. The increased frustration/arousal could lead to a negative feedback loop, which might hamper performance in subsequent trials. Care should thus be taken in future experimental designs to closely monitor the arousal level of the tested individuals in order to safeguard comparability.

The Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) is a questionnaire instrument developed to obtain quantitative data on the domestic equine triad of training, management, and behaviour of horses. The E-BARQ was developed to identify how changes in training and management impact behaviour over time, to define normal behaviour in horses, and to discover how to improve rider safety and horse welfare, leading to ethical equitation. During the development of the E-BARQ, we also investigated how best to motivate stakeholders to engage with this citizen science project. The pilot version of the E-BARQ collected qualitative data on respondents’ experience of the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was developed with the assistance of an international panel (with professional expertise in horse training, equitation science, veterinary science, equestrian coaching, welfare, animal behaviour, and elite-level riding), and was used to collect data on 1320 horses from approximately 1194 owner/caregiver respondents, with an option for respondents to provide free-text feedback. A Rotated Principal Component Analysis of the 218 behavioural, management, and training questionnaire items extracted a total of 65 rotated components. Thirty-six of the 65 rotated components demonstrated high internal reliability. Of the 218 questionnaire items, 43 items failed to reach the Rotated Principal Component Analysis criteria and were not included in the final version of the E-BARQ. Survey items that failed the Rotated Principal Component Analysis inclusion criteria were discarded if found to have a less than 85% response rate, or a variance of less than 1.3. Of those that survived the Rotated Principal Component Analysis, items were further assigned to horse temperament (17 rotated components), equitation (11 rotated components), and management and equipment (8 rotated components) groups. The feedback from respondents indicated the need for further items to be added to the questionnaire, resulting in a total of 214 items for the final E-BARQ survey. Many of these items were further grouped into question matrices, and the demographic items for horse and handler included, giving a final total of 97 questions on the E-BARQ questionnaire. These results provided content validity, showing that the questionnaire items were an acceptable representation of the entire horse training, management, and behavioural domain for the development of the final E-BARQ questionnaire.