Search

This article reports on the results of a survey of racehorse trainers (n = 112) outlining the reasons for tongue-tie (TT) and noseband (NB) use by Thoroughbred trainers (TBTs) (n = 72) and Standardbred trainers (SBTs) (n = 40). The study also investigated the reported effectiveness of TTs and possible complications arising from their use. Tongue-tie use was reported by 62.5% (n = 70) of racehorse trainers. The reasons for TT use varied between TBTs and SBTs. For TBTs, the most common reason for TT use was to prevent or reduce airway obstruction (72.3%, n = 34), followed closely by to prevent or reduce airway noise (55.3%, n = 16). Standardbred trainers assigned equal importance for TT use [to prevent or reduce airway obstruction (69.6%, n = 16) and to prevent the horse from moving its tongue over the bit (69.6%, n = 16)]. Tongue-ties were considered significantly less effective at improving performance than at reducing airway obstruction and preventing the tongue from moving over the bit (t = −2.700, p = 0.0007). For respondents who used both TTs and NBs, there was a mild to moderate positive association between the reasons for using TTs and NBs. Of the 70 TT-using respondents, 51.4% (n = 36) recorded having encountered either a physical or behavioural complication due to TT use, with redness/bruising of the tongue (20.0%, n = 14) being the most common physical complication reported. Duration of use influenced the risk of observing complications. The likelihood of a respondent reporting a behavioural complication due to TT use increased with every minute of reported application and a nine-minute increment in application period doubled the odds of a respondent reporting a complication. Tightness was a risk factor for physical complications: Checking TT tightness by noting the tongue as not moving was associated with increased reporting of physical complications (OR = 6.59; CI 1.1–67.5). This pilot study provides some insight into how and why TTs are applied by some racehorse trainers, and the potential risks associated with their use. A further study of a larger cohort is recommended because these results are valid for only the 112 trainers who responded and cannot be generalized to the equine industry.

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.