USDF had a summary article of this, with a focus on the spurs and whips, but The Horse looked at the broader study, which included bits and nosebands. This is not really a controlled study, and there are a lot of variations to consider (including rider ability), but at least it is a start.
Some things I found interesting:
-With nosebands, “tightness of the upper (cavesson) noseband strap was more important than tightness of the lower noseband strap (drop, flash, lower strap of a figure-eight, or Micklem)”.
-“Horses that did not wear a noseband had significantly more lesions at the corners of the lips than horses that wore a loosely adjusted noseband,”
-This study did not support the idea that riding bitless or without a noseband was better or kinder to the horse in terms of reducing the prevalence of lesions/blood at the corners of the lips."
-Roller-ball wheel and hammer-style knob spurs were significantly more likely to be associated with hair on the spur;
Things that seem common sense:
-Spur length and competition level were associated with the likelihood of finding hair loss or blood associated with spur use. A 1-centimeter prolongation of the spur length doubled the likelihood of finding worn hair on the horse’s ribcage. Additionally, when the competition level increased by one level, the likelihood of finding hair on the spurs decreased by 20%;
Interesting snapshot but lacking in completeness, obviously. Especially regarding bits…many people will train with a different variation in bits/bridle than they ride with in competition. So the horse that shows a lesion at the lips could have had it from a different combination of equipment or rider, even.
A longer-term study just on bit and bridle fitting would be interesting. I know she did a series of xrays of bitted horses to show the effects of different types of bits in the mouth.
As I said, not a controlled study! So many outside factors - including rider ability (which I think is implied in comparing Level 1 to Level 2 shows), horse sensitivity (I ride two horses, and one gets rub marks if I look at her wrong, seriously), practices outside the show ring (as you point out), horse mouth care (lesions can be present due to insufficient dental care), etc. Also sample sizes - there are so few using certain equipment, it is hardly worth mentioning when population is 2…
But - it is a start, and it does make us think. How many here check their spurs after riding for hair? Could we ride with shorter spurs? Maybe a different spur? And I found the “no noseband” issue to be interesting too, since I see some people saying it should be “the way”. I’ve always felt that a good fitting noseband is a good idea - just don’t tighten it so much the flesh is bulging around it :no:
I too have a horse that goes bald when you breathe on it from January to April–the reins rub him, the saddle pad rubs him, my boots rub him, let alone spurs. I think a more important measurement is whether there is any thickening of the skin where the spur is normally applied. It doesn’t come as an enormous surprise that rollerball spurs pull off more hair than regular spurs, it’s all in the action. Hammerhead though–well, they can be quite sharp.
I found the noseband thing very interesting. It would appear that a properly adjusted noseband really does stabilize the bit in the horse’s mouth. I’ve always ridden with a noseband snug enough not to flop around but not tight enough to cause tension in the mouth, which always seems counterproductive to me…
It’s a start, but it’s one that needs to be interpreted very carefully, as some of the elements of the research design make it hard to know how much those questions really matter or how we should adjust if we think we need to change. Without quibbling about their sampling and statistical methods, and assuming that they are able to detect real patterns, there’s still a lot to unpack here.
The tables they report summarize very complex models, and one of the important elements – statistically different odds ratios for different levels of categorical predictors – is reported only by a superscript that is easy to overlook. So they did find global evidence that different spur types are more or less likely to be associated with hair on spurs, but their results basically boil down to a difference between [Prince of Wales style and smooth rowel] vs. all the rest. The odds ratio CI for roller ball type is 1.76–43.47, for heaven’s sake (i.e. your roller balls might make you 1.76x as likely as a PoW to damage your horse’s hair, or it might make you 43.47x as likely to do harm)! For other styles (e.g. “daisy wheel”) the CI spans 1, meaning you might be less likely to do harm than a PoW, you might be more likely. So if you want to ask yourself “maybe a different spur?”, this research might tell you “consider a PoW or smooth rowel if you’re not already using those styles”. But who in dressage doesn’t already realize that PoW and smooth rowel spurs are an available alternative that’s generally thought of as “soft”/humane?
Second, correlation vs. causation. I’m usually the first person to point out that this old adage is too often used to argue about statistical results without first considering whether logic can be applied to determine the direction and directness of causation. But in this research I do think there is a reasonable possibility that the spur shape association is spurious (oh dear. terrible linguistic coincidence there). Namely: it is possible that riders who tend to apply spurs in ways that cause damage also tend to choose uncommon spur shapes more often that riders who use spurs humanely. For example, maybe riders who consider their horses to be chronically behind the leg/lazy and don’t know how to approach this from a training standpoint tend to be more likely to select less common spurs (e.g. “star wheel” style) AND more likely to apply spur pressure in ways that damage hair (e.g. harder or more frequently). I think we’ve all at some point known a not-so-competent rider who is convinced that their problems stem from their horse’s lack of response to standard equipment rather than a lack of rider skill. Maybe we’re seeing an effect of bad riders being more likely to choose less common equipment types, not an effect of specific spur shapes’ inherent potential for harm.
The spur length result is a bit more solid, though note that the result is driven to some extent by their binning of a continuous variable (actual measurable length) into a small number of categories, and then treating that ordinal scale as continuous. The highest (>4cm) category is associated with a much, much higher incidence of damage than any other category, and may cause the estimated increase in hair damage risk per shank length interval to be inflated. So yes, do consider whether you could reach your horse with a shorter spur, but don’t panic if you can only find smooth rowel spurs in a 4 cm length – the actual increased risk of harm vs. a 3cm spur is probably minimal.
The lip lesion results also need some nuanced interpretation, to say the least. First of all, lesions at the corners of the mouth can logically be expected to occur more often with equipment that acts on the corners of the mouth than equipment that doesn’t act on the corners of the mouth. So I would expect all bridle configurations involving a snaffle to be more prone to this sort of lesion than any equipment that doesn’t involve a snaffle (bitless/hackamore, curb only). That they find these sorts of lesions in these categories and don’t find bit type to be a significant predictor makes me wonder whether a) @Pocket Pony’s point about pre-existing lesions from other equipment used at home is a serious confound, or b) whether some not-insignificant incidence of mouth corner lesions happens in horses for reasons unrelated to riding (e.g. akin to chapped lips in humans). The authors do point out that they can’t make causal inferences because they did not inspect for lesions prior to the shows in question, but get a little slippery when it comes to lip lesions because their justification for the inferences they make (that the presence of blood is enough to suggest that the ride immediately prior to inspection was a source of irritation even if there was a pre-existing lesion) doesn’t jibe with their lip lesion classification scheme (cracked lips with no blood counts as a lip commisure lesion).
The noseband results are largely unsurprising. Even the authors state that lower noseband tightness is not expected a priori to be a significant predictor of mouth corner damage, due to the fact that nosebands that go below the bit aren’t expected to be mechanically involved in the pinching of lip corner tissues between bit and teeth. Tighter upper nosebands can potentially increase that pinching pressure, so the upper noseband tightness finding is entirely what we might expect. Their hypotheses regarding no noseband (that a horse opening their mouth might increase bit movement and lip friction, and also cause a rider to increase the contact pressure) also seem logical to me. I’m not sure that these results say anything new or exciting about lip corner rubs! Remember, though, that lip corner lesions are just one of may potential negative consequences of bridle selection/fitting. I suppose there is reasonable evidence here that nosebands should not be overtightened, but as far as noseband vs. no noseband the anti-cavesson crowd can still point to other types of lesions or sources of discomfort to support their views.
What bothers me most about this particular analysis is that noseband and bit choices are governed by different rules in each discipline that will largely determine some of the choices riders make in configuring bridles for competition. For example, all dressage riders will have one of the two bit types that involves a snaffle (snaffle, snaffle+curb). All dressage riders who have a snaffle+curb will also be at higher levels of competition and will have an upper noseband but not a lower noseband. That is, the categorical variables in this analysis are logically non-independent because certain combinations are outlawed (vs. the potential for functional non-independence that might occur, for example, because certain riding styles have different fashions for equipment). Similarly, which disciplines allow no noseband, and do sidepulls and hackamores count as noseband or no noseband? These things matter if I’m going to try to make sense of their finding that no noseband is more likely to be associated with lesions than a loose noseband. I’m really happy that they have some results that suggest that my preference for a looser noseband is a relatively humane choice w.r.t. lip corners (which is the only lip lesion result I think is meaningful), but I would be much happier to see that evidence in a model that doesn’t leave me scratching my head in trying to disentangle several effects.
Anyway, I’m glad people do this stuff, but the results that seem somewhat reliable to me (longer spurs are more likely to damage hair; tighter nosebands are more likely to cause lip corner lesions) are also pretty much common sense. I hope they plan to do more with this data, because I suspect there are more interesting insights to be gleaned.
I had a horse that resented ANY use of ANY kind of spur. He respected a whip and you didn’t have whack him a tap was sufficient - he understood. Since I was eventing, however, I had to go without a whip in the dressage phase and boy did he know it. And if I used spurs at all, correctly or otherwise, he’d balk/kick out. Since he was a nearly 17 hand big old grumpy Appy, such sensitivity was…interesting. What he did tolerate and respond to was those spurs with the blunt “teeth” on the inside - no protrusion at the back. Personally, I think those are very mild - but they are illegal. So I had to go with kick/kick/kick. Since he was an eventer, at least he made up for his mediocre dressage scores on cross country and stadium, both ridden by me without spurs. He wouldn’t be competitive these days with low dressage score. Oh, he’d be on the bit, but it was like dressage in slo-mo. I don’t understand why those very mild spurs are verboten.
This was interesting to read, and I hope it is studied further.
It seems like it would be complicated to properly study at competition, as dressage horses wouldn’t be able to compete without a noseband or bitless.
I was also curious as to where the mouth lesions/sores were on the horses. Is it possible some horses were bitless because they had mouth sores rather than the sores being created while the horse was bitless? Or are the horses biting their own lips?
This just had me thinking about my spurs. They are the longer spur length specifically because of my leg length (it tends to fall lower on the horse’s barrel). It was recommended that I purchase for that reason. Obviously the leg, and thus spur react differently with each horse shape I’m on. This alone would create a lot of inconsistencies with the study.
I do appreciate the study. It was an interesting read for me the other night. I admit, I need to read through the longer study provided above.
I think the main thing is to a) get awareness on the topic, b) realize that this is not a 1-size-fits-all topic. It will vary horse to horse and rider to rider.
I ride with a nontight cavesson, loose flash, and what I thought were nice short spurs.
Which are the kindest spurs? I have lonnnng legs so alternate between short (P o W) and swan neck but typically ride with a stirrup short enough to make either work.
I want him to be as comfortable as possible. I also ride without spurs sometimes.
