Abstract: This study examined the effects of the rider on the linear projectile kinematics of show-jumping horses. SVHS video recordings (50 Hz) of eight horses jumping a vertical fence 1 m high were used for the study. Horses jumped the fence under two conditions: loose (no rider or tack) and ridden. Recordings were digitised using Peak Motus. After digitising the sequences, each rider's digitised data were removed from the ridden horse data so that three conditions were examined: loose, ridden (including the rider's data) and riderless (rider's data removed). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences between ridden and loose conditions for CG height at take-off (p < 0.001), CG distance to the fence at take-off (p = 0.001), maximum CG during the suspension phase (p < 0.001), CG position over the centre of the fence (p < 0.001), CG height at landing (p < 0.001), and vertical velocity at take-off (p < 0.001). The results indicated that the rider's effect on jumping horses was primarily due to behavioural changes in the horses motion (resulting from the rider's instruction), rather than inertial effects (due to the positioning of the rider on the horse). These findings have implications for the coaching of riders and horses.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Little is known in quantitative terms about the influence of different head-neck positions (HNPs) on the loading pattern of the locomotor apparatus. Therefore it is difficult to predict whether a specific riding technique is beneficial for the horse or if it may increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: To improve the understanding of forelimb-hindlimb balance and its underlying temporal changes in relation to different head and neck positions. METHODS: Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: HNP1 – free, unrestrained with loose reins; HNP2 – neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; HNP3 – neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; HNP4 – neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; HNP5 – neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; HNP6 – neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge. HNPs were assessed by comparing the data to a velocity-matched reference HNP (HNP2). Differences were tested using paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test (P<0.05). RESULTS: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5. Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs. CONCLUSIONS: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: An extremely high HNP affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.

Abstract: In ethical discussions, a cost-benefit analysis requires that welfare costs associated with an activity can be reliably estimated and balanced against the potential benefits of the activity to both humans and animals. The current study applies a meta-analysis to the peer-reviewed evidence for costs and benefits of hyperflexion of the neck in horses; a practice that has attracted enormous public and scientific scrutiny over the past 15 years. A literature review identified 55 studies dealing with horses’ head and neck postures. Fourty-two of these studies examined the impact of various postures on equine welfare, for example, by assessing behavior, physiological stress parameters, health or rider-horse interaction. Thirty-five studies examined the impact of various postures on gymnastics (e.g. kinematics, shifts in weight distribution, muscle activity, airway functioning or overall workload). For the meta-analysis a dataset containing information from each of the individual studies was created. Data included information such as type, degree, duration and circumstances of hyperflexion applied in that particular study as well as information on the horses (e.g., sport discipline, level of training, breed) and on the study design (e.g., size of study and experimental or epidemiological research design). The results of the study regarding the impact of hyperflexion on a) welfare and b) gymnastics were coded as positive (1), insignificant or contradictory (0) or negative (-1). The significant majority of studies (88%) concluded that a hyperflexed head and neck posture negatively impacts welfare. Just one study suggested welfare advantages of training in a hyperflexed head and neck posture. An analysis using a generalized linear mixed model to assess the influence of the above factors collated in the dataset revealed that none of these factors significantly influenced the probability of a study to detect negative welfare implications. Thus hyperflexing the neck appears to impair horses’ welfare regardless of, for example, the duration or the way of achieving hyperflexion. A concurrent assessment of the evidence for gymnastic benefits showed that approximately one quarter of studies conclude that there may be benefits, while another quarter of the studies conclude that hyperflexion has detrimental effects on gymnastics. Thus, on the costs-side there is a clear reduction in equine welfare and some undesirable gymnastic effects, as well as likely a compromised profile of the equestrian sports in public. Benefits, on the other hand, include some desirable gymnastic effects, and potentially increased control of the horse for the rider. On balance, it appears that the costs associated with hyperflexion exceed the potential benefits of the activity to both humans and horses.