Hi All,
Welcome to topic 5 for 624EHS - Contemporary Issues in Equine Science.
This topic is all about the use and abuse of equestrian tack. Make sure you watch the launch video which has been posted in the Classroom. Distance learning students have from now until 2 pm on Wednesday 25th March to contribute to this blog, to debate the issues surrounding equestrian tack. Ensure you can also evidence you opinions and remember that you are also required to submit a reference list (word document emailed to module leader) by 2 pm on Wednesday 25th March . You will be graded on the quality and quantity of both your blog contributions and your reference list. Remember, the point of this is to debate the issues, so you should be replying to each others posts. I will be keeping an eye on the blog, but if you have any issues, you should email me.
Rosa
“Tack” and its definition is variable (Hughes, 2018) and can be employed within domesticated equestrianism for a variety of reasons. These include, but are not limited to: control of / communication with the animal; the comfort of both equid and rider; aiding stability; and aesthetic purposes. Different styles of tack are observed amongst different disciplines and within different regions, and often, the equipment can vary greatly in terms of the popularity, severity of its action and efficacy of use. Additionally, it is vital to ensure that tack is well-fitting and free from damage in order to prevent discomfort to the animal (Blue Cross, 2019).
ReplyDeleteOne of the most common causes for concern regarding tack is the use of bits, and if used, the style of bit chosen. Cook (2015) goes as far as to highlight the issue of bit-induced asphyxiation within racehorses, calling for bitless training and racing trials. However, while a more recent study by Cook and Kibler (2018) argues that the welfare of horses is improved upon removing the bit, it should be noted that the sample size used in this particular study was limited at only 66 horses, of which were assessed by their owner/rider for signs of discomfort, as opposed to a professional using a standardised process. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the use of bitless bridles which warrant further investigation.
Advances in technology including independent force gauges have allowed for exploration into the action of bits while in use. The Cross et al., (2017) study emphasises the need for further examination, as bits may not work in practice in the action as commonly perceived. Studies such as this are especially important when considering welfare.
It should be noted that irrespective of the use or style of the bit, the fundamental cause of action comes from the hands of the rider. While an advocate for bitless riding, Crandon (2018) stresses that transitioning to bitless may accentuate rider and training issues which were previously masked by the bit. Even the “softest” of aids can be used incorrectly and cause distress or harm to the animal, so it is important that riders are able to correctly evaluate their own abilities before considering the efficacy of their tack.
I concur with the welfare issue highlighted regarding bits and bridles, and though the research by Cook & Kibler (2019) on pain and fear caused by the bitted versus bit-free bridles was limited in sample size, and was purely observational, it is supported by more objective assessments made by Uldahl & Clayton (2019) on 3143 horse/rider combinations. This indicated a 9.2% occurrence of lesions caused by bits in competition alone - which obviously provoke pain and does not include pressure pain that does not produce visible lesions (Doherty et al., 2017c). Another point to be looked at is the impact on performance through respiratory problems, such as bridle asphyxia, due to incorrect head positioning and the limiting action of the bit in the horses mouth (Mellor & Beausoleil, 2017).
ReplyDeleteI would also agree that further research is needed into the effects of bitless bridles on the horse, as this seems to purely transfer the pressure applied through the reins to more limited areas of the horse's head such as the poll, cheeks and nose (Bye et al., 2017).
This leads on to the discussion on noseband tightness and its impact on the horse. A small sample size (12 horses) research by Fenner et al (2016) provides measurable physiological stress reactions to tight nosebands. As a welfare issue, and an attempt to understand how widespread the issue is Doherty et al (2017b) carried out a research on 750 horses in various disciplines which indicated that only 7% entered in the acceptable 2-finger space. A more accurate method of measuring this was the design of a noseband tightness gauge (Doherty et al., 2017a).
The general consensus, irrespective of the amount of research data, has led to noseband tightness rules being implemented by FEI (FEI, 2020), but how this will spread to outside of the competition arena or to the the non-professional has yet to be seen (Visser et al., 2019).
Another issue worthy of comment is the debate between treed and tree-less saddles. Highly repeatable research on how saddles influence equine gait which further shows the importance of a correctly fitted saddle, where pressure pads and high-speed film and photography were used to assess the peak, median and areas of saddle and girth pressure, as well as the movement of the horses back, limbs, head and neck (Bondi et al., 2019; Dyson et al., 2019; Mackechnie-Guire et al., 2019) seems to indicate that a treed saddle correctly fitted and carefully designed with side panels provides the best option to reduce welfare issues caused by pressure points, which in turn limit range of movement (RoM) and flexion in the spine and hind limbs (Belock et al., 2012; Clayton et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2017; Soroko et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2019).
However, agreement on the parameters for fitting of the saddle, is more difficult to achieve as the albeit small sample research by Guire et al. (2017) would imply.
Another facet of the saddle is the girth, here more limited but repeatable and objective research has been done which shows how girth pressure also affects the horse's way of going (Bowen et al., 2017; Millares-Ramirez & Le Jeune, 2019). This confirms a study on girth design by Murray et al (2013), which showed how a girth with padded in the elbow and olecranon process areas, while having significant caudal indentation of the cranial edge of the girth, is proved to reduce overall pressure forces, while improving range of limb protraction and carpal/tarsal flexion.
In this area further research is needed to create objective and measurable parameters for saddle and girth fitting (Guire et al., 2017) and design, which should include the requirement of a saddle to adapt to the horse's changing conformation due to workload, fitness levels, age, and seasonal variations (Soroko et al., 2018). This would require the design of an adjustable saddle in more than just the present option where only the tree length or head angles can be varied (Bondi et al., 2019).
To discuss further the point of rider action and training as a source of welfare issues in the use of tack in general with particular attention to the use of the bridle - bitted or bitless, it is worth going back to its origins.
ReplyDeleteBridles are believed to have been used as far back as 3500 - 3000 BC as a means to control the horse including the use of bits (Anthony & Brown, 2000), the purpose being to gain greater control during combat (Edwards, 2008). Meanwhile the invention of the saddle came much later, with a type of saddle cloth and surcingle in about 700 BC, followed by a rudimentary treeless saddle in 500-400 BC, designed for rider comfort, but not security (Edwards, 2008). The addition of metal stirrups didn't come before 300 AD, and revolutionised the use of horses in warfare, thanks to the stability it gave the rider in the saddle (Rudenko, 1970; Edwards, 2008).
Considering the change of use of the horse from warhorse and workhorse to one of leisure and competition, combined with our greater knowledge of the effects of human use of the horse on the horse itself (McGreevy et al., 2018), it would seem to indicate that the equine industry as a whole, and governing bodies in particular, need to promote a different approach to horse riding so as to make riding a low-level welfare compromise. This would mean the rider learning control of the horse through more subtle means, overcoming the fear of losing control, and working much more to obtain the trust of the horse through positive feedback training methods.
This would therefore extend to other equipment used in the training of the horse such asside reins, draw reins, Pessoa, Chambon, de Gogue, Market Harborough, Abbot-Davies balancing rein and the Schoolmasta to name just a few. These require careful use and in a lot of cases, apply pressure on the bit as well as other parts of the body (side reins, draw reins, Pessoa, Chambon, de Gogue, Market Harborough, Abbot-Davies balancing rein and the Schoolmasta to name just a few. These require careful use and in a lot of cases, apply pressure on the bit as well as other parts of the body. side reins, draw reins, Pessoa, Chambon, de Gogue, Market Harborough, Abbot-Davies balancing rein and the Schoolmasta to name just a few. These require careful use and in a lot of cases, apply pressure on the bit as well as other parts of the body (Mackechnie-Guire et al., 2018; Maśko et al., 2019). Further understanding of the effects of these are also needed, though possibly superfluous, if the overall approach to training and riding as previously mentioned is taken into consideration. This also includes the use of rider aids such as whips and spurs (Horseman et al., 2016; McGreevy et al., 2018; Lemon et al., 2020).
Other areas of equine equipment also include the use of boots or bandages, which though done with the protection of the horse in mind, may have adverse effects still to be fully quantified scientifically (Solheim et al., 2017; Jensen et al., 2018; Quintanar et al., 2018).
Simon makes very valid points regarding noseband tension. Although, the respective geographical location of equestrians could be a notable consideration. While the Doherty et al., (2017b) study found that only 7% of horses wore nosebands at the recommended tautness, the Visser et al., (2019) study found noteworthy improvements to that figure. Of the 100 Dutch equestrians studied, 59% of which rode horses with nosebands at the recommended two-finger width from the horse’s face. Additionally, a relationship was discovered between noseband tightness and both age and discipline, with showjumpers and younger horses wearing tighter nosebands than dressage and older horses. This may be indicative of a correlation between training and the “need” for a tighter noseband. It should be noted that the Dutch study is likely to have been influenced by the 2019 implementation of a “two-finger rule” in the Netherlands, as applied by the Royal Dutch Equestrian Federation (Visser et al., 2019).
ReplyDeleteWith regards to saddles, it could be argued that Simon’s note of a fully adjustable saddle beyond the usual head angles and tree length would be a welcome addition in the battle against poor fitting saddle use. However, with a number of equestrians using saddles that are not yet at adjustable beyond re-flocking, it may be difficult to introduce a more contemporary design, and it is suspected that its success would be dependent on factors such as affordability and durability.
Talk of saddles leads onto the use of saddle pads and cloths. While some form of barrier between the saddle and the horse’s back is usually recommended, there is an equestrian fashion movement commonly referred to as “matchy-matchy”. This practice often sees boots, bandages, wraps and headgear used as “accessories” as opposed to functional pieces of tack. Turner (2018) explains that the incorrect use of bandages, particularly in warm weather, can lead to the overheating of distal limbs and subsequent tendon damage. Turner’s article goes on to note that not only are the dangers of bandages being applied incorrectly considerable but, that the argument claiming bandages to offer support during groundwork is unfounded.
Additionally, the use of ear bonnets could be questioned here. While literature is limited, investigation into the implications of unnecessarily restricting the horse’s auditory senses might show evidence of welfare concerns, or a correlation between increased sensitivity to the rider’s aids.
Further to Simon’s note regarding compromised performance due to girth tightness, girths are a common source of pain and discomfort. Selecting the correct girth for the discipline and ability of the rider will help to reduce the negative welfare impact girths can create. An incorrectly fitted girth could cause the saddle to slip and create extreme pressure points, which will affect the performance of the horse and will raise welfare concerns. Various types of girths have been developed to try and increase ridden welfare conditions. (Bondi et al, 2019). Girths materials which promote performance and reduce tension around the sternum are made up of padding, elastic materials and contour shaping. The contoured shaping allows for increased forelimb movement (Millares-Ramirez and Le Jeune, 2019).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Simon that a padded girth allows for more freedom of movement than a standard straight girth. A study found that a contoured girth gave the horse the ability to protract forelimbs 6% to 11% more than a straight girth. The hindlimbs were able to protract an additional 10% to 20% more when a contoured girth was used. Although it should be noted the sample size only consisted of 20 elite horses. Further research into how contoured girths could be used amongst leisure horse owners to improve welfare would be required to ensure the results could be applied to the wider industry (Dyson and Greve, 2016).
Robyn identified that trends such as ‘Matchy matchy sets’ which have an impact on the consumers choice and selection of tack and equipment based on fashion trends rather than function or suitability for the horse. For millions of years the horse has evolved to become an athlete with high locomotory abilities without the requirement for bandages and boots. Extensive research has found bandages and boots increase the temperature of tendons which has the potential to lead to degeneration of the tendons, shortening the life of the horse, which ultimately leads to detrimental welfare issues (Solheim et al, 2017). The British Show Jumping association recently updated their ruling on boots. No boots longer than 16cm can be used on the hindlimbs (British Show jumping, 2020). The boots and bandages in matchy sets exceed these lengths. This raises the question of why are the sets sold with bandages and boots that have been identified as detrimental to the horse’s welfare and why do consumer still purchase the products? Should the product manufacturers be held accountable for continuing to sell products which have been recognised to negatively affect performance and welfare of the horse but appease the rider or is it the duty of the consumer to stop purchasing the products? Perhaps manufactures could make sets which do comply with all equine governing bodies rulings surrounding boots and bandages to increase and improve the welfare of modern horses. I agree with Simon, there a need for tighter regulations on the sale and use of tack in the leisure horse societies.
ReplyDeleteBridles have been used since the bronze age, the structure and design of modern bridles have not been altered dramatically. The concern surrounding the tightness of the noseband, as acknowledged by both Simon and Robyn, occurred or perhaps was even created in the Bronze age. Archaeological sites have discovered horse’s skeletons with deformations in the bridge of the nose, likely to have been caused by a noseband (Taylor et al, 2016). Welfare concerns caused by ill-fitting nosebands and bridles remain to be a concern today. It has been suggested many owners are unaware of how to correctly fit a bridle and the consequences of an ill-fitting bridle on the horse’s welfare (Ryan, 2019). Some manufactures have developed bridles which reduce pressure by up to 88% and force by up to 77%. The manufacture of the Fairfax performance Bridle also states the bridle can increase knee and hock flexion and allow for greater forelimb extension. Pressure mapping was used to develop the bridle, the only bridle currently available on the market developed using this technique and to have research papers support the figures the bridle is capable of increasing the range of movement by (Fairfax, 2020). Products which have been developed with the aid of modern technology will continue to increase the welfare and performance of horses, moving away from the Bronze age tack design. The target market for this bridle is the rich and elite. Leisure horses and horses owned by non competitive riders should also have the opportunity to be able to be ridden in a bridle suitable for modern day riding which aims to promote the horse’s well being and welfare. Bridles should be made that are affordable for everyone whilst providing optimum comfort for the horse.
ReplyDelete