Recommended Free Tools
The item titled “A Reply to Response to Comments on ‘Noseband type and tightness level affect pressure on the horse’s face at trot’” is an author-submitted letter, not a peer-reviewed journal article. The Equine Veterinary Journal declined to publish it; Horses and People reproduced it on October 13, 2025. Its authors argue that the study’s results should not be used to reassure readers or guide welfare policy without stronger evidence.
What the reply is—and what it is not
The letter is by Orla Doherty, Kate Fenner, Janne Winther Christensen, Andrew McLean, Peter Thomson, Mette Uldahl and Paul McGreevy. It responds to MacKechnie-Guire and colleagues’ reply to comments on a study of noseband type and tightness at trot. The letter’s editor’s note says the journal declined it, so it should be read as one side of a scientific exchange, not as a journal-published adjudication.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Weaver Leather Working Tack Noseband | $46.49 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
PROFESSIONAL'S CHOICE White Cord Caveson for Horses | $19.85 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Weaver Leather Nylon Noseband, Black | $15.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Weaver Equine Rope and Latigo Leather Noseband | $42.36 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Weaver Leather Working Tack Caveson Golden Chestnut | $58.10 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The authors say their primary concern is how the study might be interpreted in welfare policy—not that the research process itself harmed the horses. They contend that the study could create false reassurance about noseband tightness if non-significant statistical results are treated as proof that meaningful welfare differences do not exist.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What the authors dispute
The letter says the response adequately addressed only four of nine major concerns. Its remaining criticisms focus on how pressure measurements were grouped, interpreted and analyzed, and on how far the study’s conditions support policy conclusions. These are the letter authors’ assessments; the reproduced exchange does not independently settle them.
#1 Best Overall
- Durable heavy harness leather construction
- Non-rust stainless steel hardware
- Hand rubbed for great feel and finish
Non-significant results and statistical power
The authors argue that a result failing to reach statistical significance does not establish that there is no meaningful difference, particularly when the reported changes in force or pressure are substantial and variable. They cite an average force increase of 49% between the 2.0- and 1.5-finger settings and pressure increases of 30–81% between tightness settings. These figures are reported by the letter and have not been independently checked against the underlying study here.
The distinction matters: a study may not detect a statistically significant effect, but that alone does not prove the effect is absent. The letter calls for adequate power analysis and conservative interpretation of non-significant findings rather than treating them as evidence of safety or equivalence.
Rank #2
- LIGHTWEIGHT CORD NOSEBAND - Crafted with a thin cord noseband that offers a lightweight feel on the horse's face, the Professional's Choice White Cord Caveson helps deliver clear cues without adding heavy bulk; Slim profile fits smoothly beneath any bridle setup while providing gentle contact during training
- PRESSURE-REDUCING DESIGN - Built to distribute contact lightly across the bridge of the nose, this training noseband encourages your horse to remain calm and relaxed; Gentle pressure distribution avoids pinching sensitive areas, ensuring steady responsiveness and comfort throughout daily riding and groundwork exercises
- ADJUSTABLE KNOT STRUCTURE - Designed with an easily adjustable crown cord knot layout, this flexible equine caveson adapts seamlessly to accommodate various horse sizes and head shapes; Tied knot connections allow fast sizing modifications while maintaining correct positioning across the nose without slipping off
- HARDWARE-FREE PROFILE - Constructed without heavy metal hardware across the headstall, this streamlined riding caveson ensures a comfortable fit on the face; Eliminating metal pieces prevents unwanted rubbing and weight, offering a clean, simple fit that integrates smoothly with traditional training equipment
- SECURE HORSE FIT - Outfitted with reliable tied knot fasteners, this Professional's Choice lightweight cord caveson holds its shape securely throughout demanding arena work; Versatile sizing adjustability delivers a dependable, locked-in fit across different horses, making it a practical addition for trainers working multiple animals
Pooling noseband types and averaging pressure
The authors challenge combining drop-noseband data with data from other noseband types, arguing that pooling may obscure differences between designs. They also question averaging values across a pressure mat instead of focusing on particular anatomical locations. In the letter’s account, a Swedish noseband produced minimal mandibular pressures 2.18 times higher than a cavesson; the comparison is the authors’ reported figure, not an independently verified result.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The letter also says some cells on the pressure mat reached up to 200 kPa. A mat-wide average and a localized peak answer different questions: the average describes a broad measurement area, while a local value can highlight concentrated pressure. The authors argue that interpretation should make the relevant locations and method of averaging clear.
Rank #3
- 1" Nylon Noseband
- 1/4" Black 100" Felt Liner for Extra Comfort
- 5/8" Crown Strap
- Nickel Plated Hardware
- Made by Weaver Leather Mt. Hope, Ohio
Pain-threshold comparison
According to the letter, the response compared a maximum pressure value of 32.9 kPa with a mechanical nociceptive threshold of 500–600 kPa at the temporomandibular joint. The reply-letter authors question whether that threshold comparison is relevant to sustained noseband pressure applied to different tissues. Both the reported values and the critique are presented here as the letter’s account; they do not establish a general pain threshold for noseband use.
Statistical methods and study conditions
The authors raise concerns about methods for repeated measurements and about clustering, as well as the study’s short trial and restricted bridle context. Their point is that observations taken repeatedly or grouped within horses and riders may need to be analyzed in a way that accounts for those relationships. They recommend validated measurement methods and statistical approaches suited to repeated measures.
Rank #4
- 3/8" nylon rope noseband with a metal spacer
- 1/2" burgundy latigo leather crown strap
- Durable nickel plated hardware
What the letter reports in the response
The underlying formal response was not available in the source reviewed, so the following details come from the reply letter’s account of it. The letter reports that the response said sensors below 5 kPa were excluded from analysis and defended non-parametric methods as appropriate for skewed data and a small sample. It also reports a reanalysis excluding drop-noseband data; that analysis still found no statistically significant difference between the 2.0- and 1.5-finger settings.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe letter’s authors acknowledge those technical clarifications and the reanalysis, but say they do not resolve their central concern: substantial reported pressure changes alongside non-significant results may be misread if statistical significance is treated as the only indicator of welfare relevance.
Best Value
- 3/4" wide caveson design
- Hancrafted from premium harness leather
- Stainless steel hardware
What the authors recommend
The letter presents these as recommendations for future research and policy, not as official guidance or a settled consensus:
- Plan studies with an adequate power analysis.
- Use validated measurement methods and statistical approaches that account for repeated measurements.
- Test adjustments in both directions, including settings above two fingers.
- Interpret non-significant findings conservatively.
- Share data openly and integrate the wider literature.
- Avoid basing regulatory changes on a single study the authors regard as methodologically limited.
What a reader can conclude
The letter makes a case for caution in translating one study’s results into welfare policy, especially where non-significant findings coexist with sizeable reported pressure changes. It does not establish which noseband type or setting is safest, provide practical fitting instructions, or offer a population-level estimate of welfare effects.
The underlying study, published comments and formal response were not independently available for this account. The reply should therefore be understood as the named authors’ critique and recommendations, rather than an independent resolution of the scientific dispute. The authors describe their aim as improving future research and ensuring policy rests on methodologically robust evidence.
Read the reproduced letter and editor’s note at Horses and People.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
