Familiar routines often begin as sensible ways to get essential work done. The welfare question is whether they still serve the animal in their current circumstances, and what would need to change for a better approach to be sustained in everyday practice.
Sometimes a routine appears reliable because one experienced team member knows how to make it work. When that person is absent, it may become hurried, inconsistent or difficult to explain. The person has been holding the routine together, but the system around it may be much less reliable.
I have been that person myself and seen the same pattern in other teams.
Animal-care routines often develop for sensible reasons: safety, limited time, awkward facilities and the need for consistency across shifts. They shape feeding, cleaning, movement, group separation and preparation for procedures. Some remain appropriate; others were shaped by knowledge or circumstances that have changed.
Familiarity is not, by itself, evidence that a routine still serves the animal. The phrase “we’ve always done it this way” is not proof that a routine is wrong, but it is a clear signal that review is due.
Why routines persist
Routines can be useful and still become difficult to see clearly.
A workaround introduced for a temporary problem can gradually become the normal way of working. An informally taught method can become standard without a deliberate review.
The people carrying the routine may care deeply and recognise its limitations, yet lack the authority, resources or support to change it alone.
That is why review should start with curiosity rather than accusation.
What makes it a welfare question
The useful question is not simply whether the routine gets the task done.
It is what the animal may experience before, during and after it.
What can the animal predict from the cues around the routine? What opportunities, where appropriate and safe, do they have to pause, move away or participate? Are there repeated patterns of avoidance, hesitation, rushing, conflict or discomfort? What changes when the usual person is absent, the day is busy, or the environment is different?
Predictability, choice, control and responses to people can all be relevant to welfare, but their meaning depends on the animal, the event and the wider context. Greater predictability or more choice should not be assumed to be beneficial in every situation [1] [2].
Those observations can be useful, but no single behaviour establishes an animal’s welfare state. Behaviour needs to be considered alongside health and physical condition, the environment, wider interactions, and change over time [3] [4].
A routine can be delivered consistently without producing the welfare effect we assume it does.
Consistency can still be valuable. It may support communication and efficiency, and can make some events more predictable for an animal.
Drawing on a distinction made in implementation science [5], reliable delivery and welfare benefit are different tests. We need to ask two questions:
Can the routine be delivered safely, feasibly, consistently and efficiently?
What does the available evidence suggest about whether it benefits, harms, or makes little difference to the animal?
Review without blame
Questioning an inherited routine does not require treating established practice as poor practice.
The routine may still be appropriate. It may need a small adjustment rather than replacement. It may be the safest current option while a better approach is developed. Or it may expose a problem that the immediate team cannot solve without wider organisational support or investment.
A constructive review asks what the routine is trying to achieve, what shaped it, what it requires from the animal and team, and what is being observed now.
That changes the conversation. Instead of searching for someone to blame, the team can examine whether the routine still fits the animal, the welfare aim and the conditions in which the work actually happens.
Where there is an immediate or serious animal-welfare or safety risk, appropriate action must not be delayed by staged or reflective review. Understanding how a practice developed is not the same as accepting avoidable harm as fixed.
A better alternative has to be sustainable and work in everyday practice
Finding an approach that appears calmer, clearer or gives the animal more opportunity to participate is only part of the work.
A change may depend on the physical environment, suitable equipment, sufficient staffing and time, access to relevant expertise, and team members having the knowledge and confidence to use it. Someone may need the authority to approve the change, resolve competing priorities or protect time for it.
Where experience varies or team membership changes, clear, usable procedures and handovers become especially important. They need to explain not only what to do, but why it matters and what to observe.
Implementation research supports looking beyond what people know to whether they have the opportunity, resources, role clarity and practical support to act [6] [7]. Applying that evidence to animal-care settings still requires judgment.
The same hidden dependence can affect a proposed improvement: it may work on one shift but not another. Before concluding that the approach is unsuitable, examine what made it workable in one setting and what conditions were missing in the other.
Even when a new routine is delivered reliably, its welfare value should not be assumed. A calmer appearance, greater participation or fewer signs of avoidance may be encouraging, but they should be considered alongside other welfare-relevant evidence over time to decide whether to continue, adjust or stop.
Reflective questions for reviewing an inherited routine
These questions can help guide a team discussion. They are prompts for reflection, not a validated welfare assessment or universal checklist.
What is this routine trying to achieve, and why is it done this way?
What do we observe before, during and after it, and what might that mean for the animal?
What can the animal predict, choose or avoid, where appropriate and safe?
Can the routine be delivered safely and consistently across shifts, or does it depend on particular people, pressure or workarounds?
Would another approach better serve the animal, and who can authorise and support the change?
How will we check that any change is delivered safely and consistently, and separately assess its effect on the animal’s welfare?
The point of questioning the familiar
The aim is not to disrupt routines simply because they are old. It is to notice when familiarity has started to replace review.
Over decades in animal care, I've learned that recognising a possible improvement is only the beginning. Even a small change can feel daunting when a team has spent years refining a familiar routine. But how smoothly it runs does not, on its own, tell us what it means for the animal.
Good judgement lies in understanding why a routine developed, listening to the people who deliver it, and deciding whether change is justified. If it is, the next challenge is making that improvement safe, practical and sustainable within the realities of the facility and the animals and people involved.
Sometimes review confirms what is already working. Sometimes it reveals opportunities no one anticipated.
We inherit the routine.
The animal experiences it.
Could your organisation benefit from a fresh perspective on established practice?
Whether you're reconsidering a familiar routine or exploring wider welfare improvements, I offer science-led consultancy, practical workshops and speaking sessions grounded in the realities of animal care.
References
Bassett, L. & Buchanan-Smith, H.M. (2007). Effects of predictability on the welfare of captive animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3-4), 223-245. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.029.
Englund, M.D. & Cronin, K.A. (2023). Choice, control, and animal welfare: definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1250251. doi:10.3389/fvets.2023.1250251.
Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A.N., McGreevy, P.D., Jones, B. & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. doi:10.3390/ani10101870.
Watters, J.V., Krebs, B.L. & Eschmann, C.L. (2021). Assessing animal welfare with behavior: onward with caution. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 2(1), 75-87. doi:10.3390/jzbg2010006.
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R. & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M. & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
Damschroder, L.J., Reardon, C.M., Widerquist, M.A.O. & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, 75. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0.
About the author
Nikki Morrison is an Animal Welfare, Behaviour & Implementation Specialist and founder of Nikki Morrison | Welfare in Practice. She brings 25 years of cross-sector experience across animal care, behaviour, welfare and operational leadership, and is currently studying BSc (Hons) Animal Welfare Science at SRUC.
Related reading:
(Wild Welfare)