Why Horses Thrive Together:
Across the UK and Europe, equine housing has long prioritised individual stabling, a model built for convenience and control. Yet, the tide of research is increasingly challenging the norm, revealing how such isolation can compromise horse welfare at its most fundamental level: their behaviour. As our understanding of equine behaviour evolves, so too must our management practices. In this blog, we explore the science behind horse housing, the behavioural implications of isolation, and the promise of a more socially enriched future.
Current Industry Standards and the Case for Change
The modern equine industry often defaults to solitary stabling, with horses confined to boxes for long periods. Though traditional stabling provides perceived benefits (ease of feeding, monitoring, and injury prevention), it overlooks a critical fact: Horses are inherently social animals. This dissonance between biology and management has consequences.
Yarnell et al. (2015) conducted one of the most informative studies on this topic, comparing physiological stress indicators in stabled versus group-housed horses. Their findings were compelling: Individually housed horses showed significantly elevated heart rates and displayed more frequent stress behaviours, including weaving and pawing. The authors concluded that social deprivation had clear adverse effects on equine stress physiology, calling into question the welfare assumptions underpinning standard housing practices.
Meanwhile, more recent research by Schmucker et al. (2022) went further, examining the immunological impact of housing type. Their study revealed that single-housed horses experienced a marked drop in T-helper and cytotoxic T-cell counts, key indicators of immunocompetence. This immune suppression, coupled with elevated cortisol levels, was not observed in horses experiencing changes in group composition, suggesting that it is isolation, not social dynamism, that triggers stress-related immune disruption.
Lessons from Traditional Horse Housing
Before the widespread adoption of individual boxes, horses lived in loose herds in open fields, paddocks, or communal barns. These environments, while less regimented, aligned far more closely with the horse’s natural environment. In feral populations, horses engage in near-constant low-intensity movement, maintain tight social bonds, and communicate through complex body language. Traditional husbandry typically supported this herd dynamic to some degree.
It is only with the rise of commercial yards (competition, livery, training, etc) that large-scale, long-term isolation became common. This shift has created horses who are well-fed and well-groomed, but often mentally under-stimulated and socially deprived.
Impacts of single stabling on horse stereotypic behaviours
Behaviourally, the cost of solitary housing is significant. A range of abnormal and stress-related behaviours are more prevalent in stabled horses, including crib-biting, box-walking, and depression-like states marked by withdrawal and listlessness.
A study by Cooper et al. (2001) identified a strong correlation between restricted movement/ social isolation and the development of stereotypies. These behaviours, though often dismissed as mere habits, are now understood as coping mechanisms in response to chronic stress. Over time, they can impair welfare, compromise performance, and affect long-term mental health.
Furthermore, isolation can increase aggression, not just towards other horses when finally introduced, but also towards humans. Horses deprived of normal socialisation often fail to learn essential cues and boundaries, making them harder to handle and more reactive under pressure.
Evidence Supporting Group Keeping
Conversely, research consistently supports the behavioural benefits of group housing. Jørgensen et al. (2009) found that foals raised in social groups developed more stable temperaments and demonstrated better learning outcomes than their individually reared counterparts. Similarly, Hartmann et al. (2011) observed fewer stress-related behaviours and greater overall calmness in horses kept in small, stable groups.
In the most recent work by Schmucker et al. (2022), group-kept horses not only avoided the immunosuppressive effects seen in their isolated peers but also maintained stable cortisol levels, even amid changes in herd composition. Importantly, no increase in aggressive encounters was recorded, debunking a common myth that group living necessarily leads to conflict.
These results collectively paint a clear picture: Group housing supports more natural behaviour, reduces stress, and strengthens both physical and psychological resilience in horses.
Innovative Solutions: Track Systems and Active Stabling
Across Europe and the UK, pioneering systems are beginning to answer the call for more naturalistic housing. Track systems, inspired by Jaime Jackson’s “Paddock Paradise” concept, encourage horses to move, explore, and interact throughout the day. These designs mimic natural foraging routes and provide enrichment that can’t be matched by static stabling.
Even more advanced are active stabling systems, which combine technology with ethology. Horses are managed in large set-ups equipped with automated feeding stations, water points, and rest areas. These spaces promote continuous movement, choice, and socialisation, resulting in physically fit, mentally balanced horses.
A 2019 review published in Animals by Lesimple (2019) stressed the need for such systems, arguing that horse welfare is inseparable from opportunities to perform species-specific behaviours. Their review concluded that only environments which enable free movement, social contact, and foraging could be considered welfare-positive.
Barriers to Change
Despite the evidence, obstacles to reform remain. Financial constraints, limited land availability, and entrenched traditions all inhibit widespread adoption of group systems. Many owners fear injuries or hierarchical bullying in groups, though studies show that well-managed introductions and stable social groups largely mitigate these risks.
Another barrier is the lack of accessible education. While welfare research continues to evolve, many equestrian facilities and training courses still promote outdated models. Bridging this gap requires a concerted effort from professionals, policymakers, and welfare advocates.
A Positive Future and Research Opportunities
The growing interest in evidence-based welfare offers hope. As more owners see the benefits of group housing in behaviour, soundness, and rider safety, the cultural shift gains momentum.
Looking ahead, further research is needed to explore:
- The optimal size and composition of equine social groups
- Longitudinal studies comparing performance and longevity in isolated vs. group-kept horses
- Innovations in cost-effective, adaptable group housing for smaller yards
We’re proud to be part of this evolution. Our commitment to sustainable design and active welfare practices positions us at the forefront of this positive change. By listening to the science (and to our horses), we can design a better, more natural future for horses not only in the UK but globally.
Rethink your stable design today
References
- Schmucker, S. et al. (2022). Single housing but not changes in group composition causes stress-related immunomodulations in horses. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272445. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272445
- Yarnell, K. et al. (2015). Domesticated horses differ in their behavioural and physiological responses to isolated and group housing. Physiology & Behavior, 143, 51–57.
- Lesimple, C. (2019). Indicators of horse welfare: State-of-the-art. Animals, 9(9), 621.
- Cooper, J. J., McGreevy, P. D. (2001). Stereotypic behaviour in the stabled horse: Causes, consequences and possible solutions. Horse Behaviour and Welfare, CAB International.
- Jørgensen, G. H. M., Bøe, K. E. (2009). A comparison of foal behaviour and learning in two different rearing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119(1-2), 72–78.
- Hartmann, E., Søndergaard, E., Keeling, L. J. (2011). Keeping horses in groups: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 136(2-4), 77–87.