The use of a rein tension device to compare different training methods for neck flexion in base‐level trained Warmblood horses at the walk

BACKGROUND: Debate surrounds the use of high rein tension for obtaining different head and neck positions in the training of sport horses on account of possible welfare issues. OBJECTIVES: To compare auxiliary rein tension in two methods (Draw Reins and Concord Leader) for obtaining a standardised head and neck position on a hard and a soft surface. STUDY DESIGN: Intervention study. METHODS: Left and right rein tensions were measured in 11 base‐level trained client‐owned sport horses (mean age ± s.d.; 10 ± 3.2 years) exercised in‐hand with, in a random order, conventional draw reins or the newly developed Concord Leader in a standardised head and neck position. Rein tension was measured using a calibrated device operating at 10 Hz during six runs of 15 s in a straight line for each training method on both a hard and a soft surface. A linear mixed model and grouped logistic regression analysis were applied to compare the two methods (P<0.05). RESULTS: The odds of a tension of 0 N were lower with draw reins than with the Concord Leader. The rein tension (mean sum of the force applied, in N) of the draw reins was 13.8 times higher than that of the Concord Leader. MAIN LIMITATIONS: This study was performed on horses exercised in‐hand; however, these auxiliary aids are normally used when lungeing. Possible redirection of rein tension towards the poll was not measured. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that when using the Concord Leader a similar head and neck position is achieved with a much lower rein tension than with the draw reins and, more importantly, with a much greater likelihood of 0 N. It is unnecessary to use high auxiliary rein tension to obtain a standard, flexed head and neck position.