To communicate optimally with horses, bits are used in equestrian sports. However, there is no bit that is equally accepted by every horse and liked by every rider. To ensure fair play at national competitions, the German Equestrian Federation (FN) is responsible for the allowed bits. Similarly, at the international level, the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) is responsible for the rules and regulations for the protection of the health and well-being of horses during international competitions (FEI, 2023). The equipment catalog of the German Equestrian Federation (LPO) specifies that only materials that can withstand appropriate tension and which contours cannot be destroyed by the horse's chewing are permitted. Additionally, the materials must not be harmful to the horse's health, so metal, rubber, plastic, and leather are permitted (Deutsche Reiterliche Vereinigung e.V., n.d.). Only metals and plastics are allowed for double bridles and snaffles, and various materials can be combined. The pressure exerted by the bit can be used to communicate with the horse but can also cause discomfort or pain to the horse, particularly when bits are used incorrectly or in wrong sizes or types for the individual horse's mouth (Luke et al., 2023). Concerns regarding the welfare of horses in relation to the use of bits include mouth injuries, pain or discomfort, and impairments of the horse's ability to breathe or swallow properly (Uldahl & Clayton, 2019). In equestrian sports, there have long been a variety of opinions and views on how bits should be used to optimize both the horse's welfare and communication between rider and horse. While some argue that bits are necessary to give the rider the necessary control over the horse, others argue that bits can be uncomfortable or even painful for the horse and that there are better alternatives. Regardless of personal beliefs, factors must be considered when using bits to ensure that the horse's welfare is not compromised. This includes careful selection of the right bit type and material, the correct fit of the bit in the horse's mouth, and proper handling and application of the bit by the rider. It is important to note that the use of bits in horses can not only have an immediate impact on the horse's well-being, but can also have long-term effects (Cook, 1999). The use of bits that cause pain or discomfort can lead to the horse becoming unwilling to accept the bit and refusing to wear it in the future. This can not only lead to problems during training but also to a lack of control over the horse, which can endanger the rider's safety (Luke et al., 2023). When a bit is introduced into the horse's mouth, it rests on the tongue and can exert pressure on the palate, lips, and corners of the horse's mouth. Depending on the type of bit and rider's hand, this pressure can be exerted to varying degrees and for different lengths of time. If the pressure is excessive or the bit is used improperly, it can cause discomfort or pain to the horse, leading to a defensive reaction such as head shaking, opening of the mouth, or leaning on the bit. Even sharp bits that are not used incorrectly but may not be suitable for the individual horse can cause these reactions.

The aim of this article was to investigate different bits and the riders' opinions on the use of bits and the actual differences in the horse’s reaction and pain scale with different bits on shows. A total of 250 riders participated in the study and completed an online questionnaire that consisted of 15 questions. The questions covered topics such as the riders’ experience with bits, their understanding of the purpose of bits, and their opinions on the use of bits in different situations with their horses. To investigate the horse’s reactions on different bits, seven jumping competitions with a total of 540 videos were watched and evaluated by a rider and a veterinarian. A pain assessment was done to provide the most accurate analysis of animal pain.

Animal welfare is often negatively defined, where well-being is seen as the absence of compromised welfare. This definition can be traced back to one of the earliest attempts to scientifically define well-being. In 1965, the Brambell Committee formulated the five freedoms, assuming that animal welfare is fulfilled when animals are free from:

Four out of these five freedoms were formulated based on the perspective that the absence of 'ill-being' implies the presence of well-being. However, these definitions and concepts often overlook the positive aspect of well-being (being well).

Recently, there have been attempts to approach well-being in a more positive manner. (Mench, 1998) suggests that the concept of well-being implies the presence of both positive and negative emotions, not just the absence of suffering. Also (Duncan, 2005), who states that "...well-being encompasses both positive and negative feelings, thus involving the satisfaction of desires and needs" aligns with Mench.

The latest advancement in animal welfare involves a significant progression by considering the animal's own perspective in welfare concepts. According to (Bracke et al. 1999) animal welfare is defined as the subjective experience of the animal, reflecting the quality of its life. These concepts take into consideration both scientific and societal understandings of animal consciousness, which now acknowledge that vertebrate, and partially invertebrate animals not only experience emotions in the moment but also relate them to their surroundings and experiences. Furthermore, they possess a certain degree of emotional adaptability (Ohl et al., 2008).The field of veterinary medicine takes a (patho)biological approach when considering the concept of animal welfare, which involves understanding the continuum between health and illness in relation to ethical values and norms, such as recognizing the intrinsic value of animals. In this context, the concept of well-being is seen as an internal state that is subjectively perceived as positive by the individual. Consequently, an individual experiencing a negative subjective state is considered to be in a state of non-well-being.

To define well-being, it is understood that an individual is in a state of well-being when it can actively adapt to its living conditions and achieve a positive state as perceived by the individual (Bracke et al., 1999).

Understanding the concept of animal welfare, particularly in the context of using bits in horses, is of paramount importance for this research study. By exploring various perspectives and definitions of animal welfare, it is possible to gain valuable insights into the factors that influence a horse's well-being and how it relates to their experiences and perceptions.

Taking a (patho)biological approach allows us to delve into the continuum between health and illness in horses, considering the ethical values and norms associated with their care. This perspective enables us to evaluate the impact of using bits on a horse's well-being by examining their physical and physiological responses, as well as their ability to adapt to their surroundings.

Incorporating the horse's own perception and subjective experience of well-being is a critical aspect. Recognizing that well-being encompasses more than just the absence of negative experiences, but also includes positive emotions and the fulfillment of desires and needs, is essential to our understanding. By taking the horse's subjective experience into account, we can gain deeper insights into how the use of bits may impact their overall well-being.

Furthermore, assessing the horse's adaptive capacity within the context of using bits is crucial. By examining how horses adapt to the presence of bits and identifying any potential limitations in their ability to adjust, we can better comprehend their welfare implications. Detecting behaviors that may indicate poor adaptation or negative experiences can provide valuable information about the potential effects of using bits on a horse's well-being.

Questionnaire:

The primary reason cited by riders for using different bits for different horses was that horses respond differently to different bits, as reported by 89% of respondents. This emphasizes the importance of selecting a bit that suits each horse's individual needs and preferences to optimize their comfort and performance. A significant majority of riders (92%) reported using different bits for different horses during competitions. This finding highlights the recognition among riders that horses have unique responses and requirements when it comes to bitting.

Additionally, 44% of riders reported using different bits at home compared to during competitions. This suggests that riders consider the specific demands and expectations of show environments when choosing a bit. The reasons provided by riders for this difference included certain bits not being allowed at shows, the horse being more energetic and excited at shows, different control expectations at shows, and varying requirements for different disciplines such as show jumping versus basic work at home.

When riders were asked about the factors they consider important when choosing a bit at home, two factors stood out: the horses' satisfaction with the bit and the desire for a consistent connection with the horse's mouth. These factors received mean ratings of 5.59 and 5.22, respectively, on a scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 6 (very important). These findings suggest that riders prioritize their horses' comfort and responsiveness when selecting a bit for use during regular training sessions or everyday riding.

Interestingly, the factor of the horse chewing on the bit was also considered important by the riders, with a mean score of 4.27. This indicates that riders recognize the significance of the horse's chewing behavior as an indicator of acceptance and comfort with the bit.

On the other hand, factors such as being able to turn the horse, having control, and the horse giving the rider pressure were deemed less important by the riders at home, with mean ratings of 3.69, 4.18, and 4.03, respectively. These results suggest that, in a home riding environment, riders may place less emphasis on strict control or specific performance outcomes and instead prioritize the overall satisfaction and connection with their horses.

When examining the riders' perspectives on choosing a bit at a show, some shifts in priorities become evident. The most important factor for riders at a show remained the horse's satisfaction with the bit, with a mean rating of 5.33. However, this score was significantly lower than the rating given for the same factor when choosing a bit at home (5.59).

Similarly, the importance of the horse chewing on the bit slightly decreased when riders were considering a bit for a show, with a mean score of 4.12. Although still significant, this decrease may be due to the different context of a show, where riders may focus more on performance and presentation rather than the horse's comfort alone.

The second most important factor for riders at a show remained a consistent connection with the horse's mouth, with a mean rating of 5.19. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the importance of this factor at home and at a show. This indicates that riders consistently prioritize maintaining a reliable and responsive connection with their horses' mouths regardless of the riding environment.

Finally, the factor of the horse being easy to control at a show received a mean rating of 4.97, which was significantly higher than the rating given for riding at home. This suggests that riders place greater importance on having control over their horse's movements and behavior during show performances, potentially due to the competitive nature and higher expectations associated with shows. Also, it can be seen as dangerous to have less control in an unknown environment and with spectators around.

In summary, the results highlight that riders consider different factors when choosing a bit for their horses at home compared to when participating in shows. At home, riders prioritize their horses' satisfaction with the bit, consistent connection, and to some extent, the horse's chewing behavior. In contrast, at shows, riders still prioritize their horses' satisfaction and consistent connection but place more importance on control over the horse's movements. Understanding that riders choose different bits at a show than at home is crucial for accurately interpreting the consequences from using certain bits at shows. By recognizing and analyzing the reasons behind the variation at home and at shows, trainers, judges, and enthusiasts can gain valuable insights into the dynamics and welfare of the horse and the overall context of equestrian sports.

When looking at the video analyses there was a high level of agreement between the two observers, which indicates that the ethogram used in this study is a reliable and effective tool. The 95% consensus between the two parties demonstrates that they interpret and understand the behaviors in a similar manner. This high agreement rate suggests that the ethogram provides clear definitions and criteria for assessing the behaviors, ensuring consistency in their interpretation by different observers. It is to be mentioned that the Cohens kappa coefficient was the lowest for behaviors involving the movement of the ears. That suggest that there is some subjectivity and discrepancy in the interpretation of ear movements between the veterinarian and the show jumper. This is an important finding to be considered for future studies. In the observed shows, the Pelham bit emerged as the predominant choice, accounting for 25.4% of the total bit usage, closely followed by the loose ring bit at 18.3%. However, when surveying the riders, a noteworthy discrepancy arose. The majority of respondents (74%) indicated using the loose ring bit during jumping activities, while only 25% reported employing the Pelham bit. It is important to note that the survey did not explicitly specify whether the respondents were referring to show conditions alone or including training sessions as well. Therefore, we must consider the possibility that the observed bit usage at shows may not accurately represent the entirety of a horse's daily life.

The variation in reported bit usage suggests that riders may employ different bits during training sessions or in non-show settings. This highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of bit preferences and usage patterns across various contexts. It is plausible that riders opt for different bits based on individual horse needs, training objectives, and personal preferences. Consequently, the bit choices observed at shows may not be fully representative of the overall bit usage experienced by the horses. We also see this in the open answer section, where riders stress the importance of a “lighter” bit at home, so the horse will be more sensitive to a “sharper” bit at shows. These findings underscore the importance of considering the broader context in which bit usage occurs and avoiding hasty generalizations based solely on show observations. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, future research should explore bit usage patterns in both training and show environments, while also considering individual horse-rider combinations. It is interesting to note that our survey revealed that the loose ring bit and egg butt are considered to be the lightest bits. These findings align with the regulations set by the Deutsche Reiterliche Vereinigung e.V. (2023), which allow these bits in the lower-level classes, typically attended by amateur riders. However, when we look at defense movements associated with these bits in higher-level classes, it becomes clear that they are not completely harmless.

On the other hand, the hackamore shows better results in terms of defense movements, with a lower occurrence. The hackamore combi, which combines elements of the hackamore and a bit, also performs well in this regard. It is important to note that the hackamore and the hackamore combi is not allowed in classes under 125cm in Germany.

We should think again about what we need from horse equipment and consider creating new designs that work in different ways on the horse's mouth and aim to better steer and control them.

By reevaluating our requirements, we can see if the current bit designs have any limitations and find new and better solutions that allow riders to communicate more effectively with their horses. This might involve working with experts in horse equipment design to create new designs that are more compatible with how horses naturally move and behave.

Introducing new designs that work differently on the horse's mouth or/and head can help us understand how different materials, construction, and pressure distribution affect the horse's reactions. By exploring these new possibilities, we can find gentler and more horse-friendly options that improve communication and overall well-being.

To make sure these new designs work well, we need to do thorough research and testing to see how they affect horse performance and happiness. By working together with equestrian professionals, researchers, and manufacturers, we can develop innovative designs that prioritize the horse's comfort, responsiveness, and partnership with the rider.

In conclusion, by reconsidering our needs and creating new designs that work differently on the horse's mouth and head, we can make improvements in horse equipment.