UK Registered Charity number 1155018

Donate
Access Members Area

Bit-Induced Mouth Pain and Wider Equine Welfare Assessments Ignored in a Paper on Bridle and Bit Fit

Credit original article: Horses and People https://horsesandpeople.com.au/

A critique of “The Role of the Equestrian Professional in Bridle and Bit Fit in the United Kingdom“

In this compelling critique, Professor Emeritus David Mellor examines a recent study published in Animals by Kathryn Nankervis, Jane Williams, Diana Fisher, and Russell MacKechnie-Guire. Mellor questions the almost complete absence of references to bit-induced mouth pain, and a failure to comprehensively evaluate the associated welfare concerns.

General Comments

The major aims of the Nankervis et al (2024) paper were to consider:

  1. how bridle and bit suitability and fit contribute to the horse’s comfort, performance and welfare;
  2. how equestrian professionals forming multidisciplinary teams (MDT) have opportunities to support horse owners regarding these specific matters; and
  3. what they understand by the notions of bridle and bit fit.

The data were acquired using a questionnaire survey and analysed statistically.

The MDT professionals included equine coaches, therapists and saddle fitters. Of these, coaches and therapists agreed that the top three bridle fit issues were ‘browband too small’, ‘noseband too tight’ and ‘noseband too low’. In addition, more professionals reported issues related to bit suitability than fit, but the distinction between the two was not clear because both options were apparently included within the questionnaire section on bits.

When bit issues were observed or suspected, 90% of saddle fitters, 67% of coaches and 45% of therapists stated they would recommend that owners consult qualified bit professionals. This indicated, respectively, that ‘very high’, ‘high’ and ‘moderate’ proportions of the MDT professionals did not consider themselves sufficiently qualified to comment on bit issues. Heavy reliance is therefore placed on the expertise of bit professionals to provide remedies for bit-related problems when they are recognised by others. This raises the question of what criteria bit professionals use when making their assessments.

The most frequent bit fitting issues identified were as follows:

  • the bit being ‘too big’ or ‘too small’;
  • the bit ‘not being suitable for the horse’ or for ‘the horse-rider combination’; or
  • the bit being ‘unsuitable for the horse’s mouth’.

These general descriptors may be meaningful to the MDT professionals, but precise details needed for owners and others to use them diagnostically were not provided.

An attempt is made to create an aura of authority and trust by referring to equestrian professionals and multidisciplinary teams who may provide reliable advice to horse owners. The implication is that horses are in well-qualified hands, an implication undermined by the provision of only scant details of the professionals’ qualifications. Moreover, there are the comments in the paper, firstly that the British Horse Society training pathway for coaches mainly emphasises safety when assessing tack and equipment, and secondly that there is a lack of qualifications dealing specifically with bridle and bit fitting.

The hope or expectation is expressed that the introduction of bridle and bit fitting qualifications, and the voluntary regulation of ‘fitting’ via the Equine Fitters Council, should result in improved standards at all levels of equestrian activity. However, this will only be the case if serious consideration is given to well-authenticated scientific knowledge of serious welfare problems associated with bit usage.

Bit Use and Mouth Pain

Behaviours specific to bit pain occur during virtually every horse riding or driving activity that involves rein tensions being transmitted to sensitive oral tissues via bits, and these behaviours do not occur when pain-free bit-free bridles or halters are used (Mellor 2024a). Among many other striking examples (Mellor 2020) are bitted horses during dressage competitions, captured in images by ©Crispin Parelius Johannessen. Published here with permission, you can view high resolution versions of these images alongside 200 others by clicking here.

Image by Crispin Parelius Johannessen.

These images add to extensive and compelling, peer-reviewed published evidence that bits can and often do cause mouth pain in diverse circumstances (outlined in detail by Mellor 2020), and in addition they can cause other aversive experiences including fear, panic and breathlessness (Mellor and Beausoleil 2017; Cook 2024a).

The two papers by Mellor together reference a total of ~380 directly relevant publications. Most of these were authored b well-recognised experts in wider specialties of direct relevance to understanding pain, fear, panic and breathlessness, applied to horses. This clearly indicates considerable in-depth and broadly-based foundations to the conclusions reached.

This image by Crispin Parelius Johannessen can be viewed alongside 200 others in a public folder.

Published in the open access journal Animals, these two papers (Mellor and Beausoleil, 2017; Mellor, 2020) are well known as downloads of whole copies currently total ~66,210, and published citations total ~100; with these figures increasing almost daily. It is, therefore, surprising that the word “pain” was used only twice in the text of the Nankervis et al (2024) paper being reviewed here. The first mention was in the context of musculoskeletal problems (critiqued elsewhere: Cook 2024b; Mellor 2024a), and the second was in relation to head carriage, where the authors noted that coaches are not trained or qualified to assess pain.

Instead, the much less evocative word “discomfort” was used twice in an apparent attempt to divert attention away from the frank noxiousness and magnitude of pain experiences. Moreover, the readily available compelling published evidence that bits cause mouth pain was not even mentioned. This was a glaring omission. However, it accords with current campaigns (e.g., Dyson 2024) to divert attention away from bit-induced mouth pain, many of which include false claims that the evidence that bits cause pain is inadequate or flawed, or that the researchers who have provided that evidence are self-serving or inept (see commentary by Garnham 2024).

Image by Crispin Parelius Johannessen.

Regarding the competence of the authors, consider for example the papers entitled “Equine welfare during exercise” (Mellor and Beausoleil, 2017) and Mouth pain in horses” (Mellor, 2020). Note that many of the ~380 papers quoted in these two seminal equine publications were written by investigators of high international standing and long experience in their specific fields. Both also benefitted greatly from the knowledge acquired during a prior 25-year programme to explore painful husbandry practices in livestock and how to eliminate that pain.

Importantly, the pain was evaluated both physiologically and behaviourally.

This multi-investigator programme, instigated and co-led by the present author, was described and evaluated in 55 rigorously peer-reviewed publications and was also scrutinised during 25 invited public presentations.

Furthermore, this programme provided robust scientific foundations for characterising the pains caused by the different husbandry methods, and for the required pain control methods included in the New Zealand Code of Welfare for Painful Husbandry Procedures 2018.

“Bit fit” appears likely to be determined by the physical size and shape of the bit and its disposition within the horse’s mouth, where its position may also be influenced by “bridle fit” (i.e., the length of the head and cheek pieces). This means that the horse will not be able to escape bit stimulation of its exquisitely pain sensitive oral tissues that include gums, tongue, teeth, lips and bone (Mellor 2020; Cook 2024a). This further questions the almost complete absence of references to mouth pain in the Nankervis et al (2024) paper.

Finally, it is noteworthy that concern about bit pain or the aversiveness of bit use dates back at least 135 years (Cook 2024b). This is not new. However, early last century there was a lull in interest until ever-evolving scientific understanding of pain in both humans and animals, based on new technologies to assess it, rekindled investigations of pain, its causes, its nature and its alleviation. Scientific investigations of the phenomena responsible for mouth pain in horses have been especially active during the last 20-25 years, and provide exceptionally compelling evidence for how it arises, its associated problems and its prevention. The peer-reviewed literature is readily available for perusal.

Image by Crispin Parelius Johannessen.

Welfare Implications Largely Neglected

Only cursory, even dismissive, attention was given to the potential welfare implications of the bit being located in the horse’s mouth. The commentary was first diverted to bridle-fit issues with no mention of the bit, and then included the recommendation that responsibility for providing advice on welfare and safety be assigned to bit-fitters.

It has already been noted above, that the foundations of such bit-fitters’ advice are poorly explained in the paper, and that there are no formal qualifications for bit-fitters.

It is surprising that no reference was made to the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment and management, a Model which has garnered strong international interest and widespread use.

For example, the latest paper outlining its key features after a 30-year evolution (Mellor et al, 2020) has so far been downloaded in full ~110,000 times and cited in different publications ~750 times (figures that increase almost daily). The Model provides a means for making comprehensive, systematic and structured animal welfare assessments, including evaluation of the well-described noxious effects of bits.

Image by Crispin Parelius Johannessen.

Moreover, the Model has been adopted by an increasing number of equestrian sports and racing entities to guide their welfare management. The first was New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR), closely followed by Equestrian Sport New Zealand (ESNZ) and Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ).

Other entities now include the:

  • International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA)
  • International Equestrian Federation (FEI)
  • International Dressage Officials Club (IDOC)
  • International Dressage Riders Club (IDRC)
  • International Dressage Trainers Club (IDTC)
  • European Federation of Veterinarians (FVE)
  • Equestrian Australia (EA)
  • Pony Club Association of Australia (PCAA)
  • Racing Victoria (RV)
  • Harness Racing Victoria (HRV)
  • Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (QRIC)
  • Swedish Equestrian Federation (SEF)
  • Horses and People magazine.

The Model has also been adopted by other national and international entities (see Mellor 2024b for full details), summarised thus:

  • Professional and Research Bodies (n=11)
  • Charities and Welfare NGOs (n=17)
  • Zoos and Marine Parks (n=14)
  • Government Departments and Advisory Bodies (n=6)
  • Corporations (n=10).

Recently, other resources have been made available to assist those with equine interests who wish to utilise the Five Domains Model.

First, there is an internationally accessible online course focused on horses. Mounted by the University of New England, NSW, Australia, it is entitled Applying the Five Domains Model to the Welfare Assessment of Sport and Recreation Horses.

Secondly, an app called the Mellorater has been developed to assist animal guardians to make Five Domains welfare assessments in a wide range of animals including horses. Its precise purposes, operation, benefits, and importantly, what it is not designed to do, have been outlined in detail by the independent team who devised and named it (Wilkins et al., 2024). A preview, which includes a user demonstration, is available online.

Postscript

It is unfortunate that the significant effort put into undertaking this questionnaire and preparing its conclusions for publication (Nankervis et al 2024) had the limitation identified here.

Regrettably, once such impediments are recognised, scientific rigour demands that they be addressed.

References

 © All rights Reserved. Designed by Le Grand Solutions. Website managed by Design Vibe Creative

Scroll to Top