08/04/2025
This is some really good information on nosebands
New research shows cranking the noseband hurts your horse's gait.
There are always many opinions about nosebands. Too loose, and a trainer might call it sloppy. Too tight, and it becomes a welfare concern. There are studded and crank and chain and traditional, and all kinds of gadgets and gizmos designed to keep our horse’s mouth shut, but what is best for the horse? Is cranking that extra hole doing more harm than good?
A 2025 study published in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science examined the impact of noseband tightness on pressure and performance. The results are eye-opening if you believe that a tighter noseband means better performance in the ring.
Most riders are familiar with the standard: leave two fingers’ space beneath the noseband. It’s even outlined in guidelines from the FEI. And according to the study, 85% of riders say they know this recommendation. But when researchers actually measured the fit using a standardized taper gauge, only 15% had their nosebands adjusted to the proper tension.
The vast majority were too tight. Sometimes dramatically too tight.
The Hidden Pressure on a Horse’s Face
In the study, eight horses were fitted with a simple cavesson noseband and tested at three settings: a standard two-finger fit, a snug one-finger fit, and a cranked-tight zero-finger fit. Under each setting, researchers measured facial pressure and evaluated gait.
- The one-finger setting increased pressure on the nasal bone by 54% over the two-finger baseline.
- The zero-finger setting? A staggering 338% increase in pressure.
Imagine trying to do your day job with a belt cinched tight around your nose and jaw. Now add that your success relies on body movement, and you have no way to say, “This hurts.” That’s similar to what the horse might feel like being asked to perform in a fully tightened noseband that more than triples the force exerted on its face.
Unfortunately, changes to tack and equipment don’t typically come solely from the perspective of the horse’s comfort. So let’s look at performance as well.
In addition to pressure data, the researchers measured each horse’s trot stride. As the noseband got tighter, the stride got shorter—by a lot. On average:
- Horses at the one-finger tightness lost 6.2% of their stride length.
- With a fully tightened noseband, stride loss jumped to 11.1%.
In real-world terms, that’s about 24 centimeters, roughly the length of a hoof, disappearing from every stride. While that may not sound dramatic at first, consider how it compounds across a full course. Shorter strides can mean rushed distances, flat movement, and a horse that never quite gets to “flow.” In the hunter ring, 24 centimeters could be the difference between pinning in a highly competitive under saddle class.
And this wasn’t just about stiffness or resistance. The study found a statistically significant negative correlation between noseband pressure and stride length. In short, the tighter the fit, the shorter the step.
Sure, a longer stride is helpful in the show ring. But this research highlights deeper concerns about what that level of pressure does to the horse’s face and nerves. The noseband sits directly over sensitive structures, including branches of the trigeminal nerve, which help regulate posture and proprioception. Excessive pressure here doesn’t just hurt. It may also interfere with the horse’s balance and coordination.
Previous studies have shown that pressures as low as 32 kPa can damage tissue. In this study, the tightest noseband setting reached an average of 115.8 kPa. That’s far above what’s been associated with pain or injury in other species. That number isn’t just theoretical. It’s happening under tack, often unnoticed, every day. And unlike overt lameness, this kind of pressure flies under the radar, making it easy to miss, but just as impactful.
🔗 Read the full article at https://www.theplaidhorse.com/2025/07/30/new-research-shows-cranking-your-noseband-hurts-your-horses-gait/
🔗 Read the full study here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737080625003120?via%3Dihub
