Prevalence of different head-neck positions in horses shown at dressage competitions and their relation to conflict behaviour and performance marks.

Kathrin Kienapfel,Yvonne Link,Uta König V Borstel,Kim A Bard

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103140

Kathrin Kienapfel, Yvonne Link + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103140

Copy DOI

Abstract

Much controversy exists among riders, and in particular among those practicing dressage, regarding what can be considered an “appropriate” Head-Neck-Position (HNP). The objective was to assess the prevalence of different HNPs in the field, the behavioural reactions of horses during warm-up and competition rides in relation to HNP and the relation between HNP and marks achieved in the competition. Horses (n = 171) were selected during dressage competitions according to their HNP (3 categories based on the degree of flexion), and their behaviour was recorded during 3 minutes each of riding in the warm-up area and in the competition. Scans were carried out on an additional 355 horses every 15 minutes to determine the proportion of each HNP in the warm-up area. Sixty-nine percent of the 355 horses were ridden with their nasal planes behind the vertical in the warm-up area, 19% were ridden at or behind the vertical and only 12% were ridden with their nasal plane in front of the vertical. Horses carrying their nasal plane behind the vertical exhibited significantly (P<0.0001) more conflict behaviours than horses with their nose held in front of the vertical. Horses were commonly presented with a less flexed HNP during competition compared to warm-up (P<0.05). A HNP behind the vertical was penalised with lower marks in the lower (P = 0.0434) but not in the higher (P = 0.9629) competition levels. Horses in higher classes showed more (P = 0.0015) conflict behaviour than those in lower classes. In conclusion, dressage horses are commonly ridden during warm-up for competitions with their nasal plane behind the vertical, and this posture seems to cause significantly more conflict behaviour than HNPs in front of the vertical.

Highlights

Riding styles, and in particular horses’ postures during riding commonly are subject to welfare debates
Pilot study In order to assess the potential influence of bias in the observer from the main study, a pilot study was conducted on 29 horses from one dressage competition not included in the main study, using two different observers: one of these observers was familiar with horses, while the other was entirely unfamiliar with horses
An additional part of pilot study was conducted. It included as observer the person from the main experiment as well as an additional observer unfamiliar with horses, who likewise provided written consent and knew that he was participating in research. Both persons observed the videos of 5 different horses during dressage competitions unrelated to those involved in the main experiment, but selected to include the full range of HNPs observed in the main study

Summary

Introduction

In particular horses’ postures during riding commonly are subject to welfare debates. With regard to the HNP the ‘‘modern’’ riding technique is referred to as rollkur, hyperflexion or LDR (Low, Deep and Round). It has been practiced at least as early as in the 17th century [2]. The ‘‘classical’’ riding style was summarized and codified in the German military regulations from 1912 [3]. These regulations include the rule that the horses’ nasal plane should be slightly in front of the vertical

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion