Why the FEI need a scientific approach to Tack Approval
At this time, the FEI do not hold a certification process for approval of individual pieces of horse equipment. There is no way a bridle designer could submit a piece of tack and get a “stamp of approval by the FEI” (FEI spokesperson in Lausanne, Switzerland). At the moment the FEI “merely interprets the applicable FEI Rules and Regulations when it comes to individual tack and equipment”. There has been growing concern from the public and the equestrian community, along with scientists and vets for the FEI to create a welfare based, scientific approach to tack approval and update and enforce over tight noseband rules.
December 2022, the FEI banned the use of the “Quantum” bridle in competition. It stated that:
“The noseband and cheekpiece are linked on both the snaffle and the double, and the bit does not have an independent action, so when tension is placed on the rein, and the bit is brought into action, the noseband is pulled onto the nasal bone of the horse”.
I do believe that bits should have independent action from the noseband, but do other FEI approved bridles do this?
In a study conduced this year, investigating the pressure under the noseband of five different bridles, one banned from FEI (Quantum) and four others that are FEI approved (including the Micklem and the Nirak bridles) (Gertz & Harrison, 2023) had some very interesting results. Seven horses were used, and had a Fujifilm LLLW – ultra super low pressure film placed underneath their nosebands to record pressure. All the bridles had the same snaffle bit, and were tightened to the 2 fingers setting on the ISES taper gauge at the front nasal plane.
The pressure was recorded during several actions: rest, back-up, collected gait , walk and halt/stop. Taking an interest in the back-up and halt/stop measurements (when the bit would be engaged the most for back up and halt ques) below is a chart of the average recorded pressure (mmHg) under the noseband for each bridle, for back – up and halt (Gertz & Harrison, 2023).
It is interesting to note that the banned FEI Quantum bridle (D) exerts less pressure under the noseband compared to the other bridles. The Micklem (C) and the Nirak (E) bridles are higher in pressure, along with the crank noseband being the highest in both cases. It was found that almost 75% of human subject reported pain when 200mmHg was applied to their upper arm (E.S et al., 2006) and the FEI approved bridles are showing this amount of pressure and higher.
When looking at these movement again, but adjusting the data for contact area of the nosebands (mmHg/cm2) as some nosebands have a larger surface area than others, below is what was found.
Similar trends are seen here as the two (in my opinion) fixed bit bridles –the Micklem (C ) and the Nirak (E) -are found to apply the most pressure during back up and halt.The banned Quantum welfare bridle (D) is lower in pressure compared to the other FEI legal bridles.
This is why, the FEI need a more scientific approach to approving bridles for competition. They previously stated that the Quantum did not have independent action of the bit and the noseband was pulled onto the nasal plane of the horse. It can be seen from these results that when the bit is brought into action (for halt and back up ) there is lower pressure exerted under the noseband for the Quantum as the noseband can move within the slot of the cheek pieces.
The bridles that exerted higher pressure are seen to be the FEI approved Micklem and Nirak bridles. These bridles have bit straps directly connected to the noseband and from the results, it can see that when the bit is brought into action, the noseband is also engaged and applies pressure to the nasal bone. It is clear that the FEI need a new scientific approach for approving tack for competition to ensure the welfare of our horses.
If you like my work and wish to support it, you can buy me a coffee :)
References
Gertz, E. and Harrison, A. (2023) Equine bridle nosebands: Pressure Testing for Horse Comfort [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4587163. ( click here for the full paper )
Ng ES, Ting JR, Foo SL, Akram SA, Fadzlina AA, Alywiah JS, Ahmad TS. The comparison of discomfort level between upper arm and forearm tourniquet. Med J Malaysia. 2006 Dec;61 Suppl B:23-6. PMID: 17600989.