I have a working piece of hardware, nearly three years of development behind it, a substantial body of observational and video material, and a question that now reaches considerably further than the product that first allowed me to see it. I have taken that question about as far as I responsibly can, as an inventor observing my own dog and my own apparatus, which is why I am looking for researchers, veterinary professionals, welfare scientists and organisations willing to examine what happens when a largely uncontrolled variable in canine feeding becomes something we can deliberately introduce, manipulate and measure.

The starting point remains straightforward. We spend enormous amounts of time asking what a dog gets to eat, while giving surprisingly little attention to what the physical form and presentation of that food allow the dog to do.

That physical form presents the dog with a mechanical problem whose demands change according to the item's size, geometry, toughness, attachment and resistance. A dog possesses a coordinated feeding apparatus involving differentiated dentition, the jaws and masticatory musculature, tongue and lips, periodontal tissues, neck, shoulders, forelimbs and paws, all operating within a changing relationship between the animal, the food and the environment. Depending on the physical properties of the item, the dog may grip, penetrate, hold, pull, tear, strip, shear, scrape, crack, crush, gnaw, lick, extract and repeatedly reposition both the food and its own body as the mechanical problem changes.1

When the dog pulls, however, something has to push back.

With a loose item, that counterforce may come from the dog's paws, friction against the ground, the mass of the food, surrounding furniture, a corner, connected tissue or whatever else in the environment happens to resist movement. BoneZone® raises a deceptively simple experimental question: what changes when that resistance is supplied deliberately by a stable external structure instead?

If that change also makes substantial feeding items practical in households where mess, uncontrolled movement, supervision, retrieval or environmental contact previously caused owners to avoid them, then we have another question sitting beside the biomechanical one. What meaningful behavioural opportunity might the physical infrastructure restore for the dog?

Those two questions - what stable resistance changes in the animal, and what controlled presentation changes for the human providing the opportunity - are the reason for this letter.

BoneZone® began with Phoenix, my Belgian Malinois, and a practical problem many dog owners will recognise: substantial feeding items travelling across the property, contacting unwanted surfaces, disappearing into places they did not belong and becoming progressively more difficult to supervise, retrieve or manage hygienically.

I approached that problem through engineering and practical risk management because I wanted greater control over the feeding environment without removing the dog's ability to physically work the food. The objective was never simply to prevent an item from moving. It was to determine whether controlled resistance could solve the human management problem while leaving the dog's side of the interaction active.

That development produced BoneZone®, a modular Structural Feeding™ canine enrichment apparatus and chewing station that secures appropriately selected meaty bones, substantially structured intact foods and long-duration chews to a stable physical structure. The food retains useful form, geometry and resistance while the apparatus allows the owner to exert considerably greater control over location, height, movement, environmental contact, supervision, removal, hygiene management and cleanup.

Structural Feeding™ is the broader term we use for that physical presentation and engineering layer between the dog, an appropriate substantially structured feeding item and the modern environment. It is not a diet and it does not require every meal to become a task, nor does it require every dog to receive bones. It asks what happens when food retains enough physical structure to create useful mechanical work and the environment supplies enough controlled counterforce for the animal to perform it.

The structure supplies the resistance while the dog supplies the force, but describing the interaction that simply risks understating what is actually happening inside the animal.

The canine dentition is differentiated because the teeth perform different mechanical roles. The incisors can participate in fine prehension, nibbling, scraping, raking and stripping attached material; the canines penetrate, capture and grip; the premolars and carnassial region contribute to cutting and shearing; and the more caudal teeth can participate in crushing and reduction depending upon bite position, food geometry and the material being worked.1

Those different positions also change mechanical advantage. Bite force is not uniform across the dental arcade, and work performed at the canine is mechanically different from work performed nearer the carnassial region and temporomandibular joint. Head morphology, mandibular lever relationships, gape, bite position and the properties of the material all influence the forces available and the way those forces are applied.1, 7, 8

Jaw closure and bite-force generation recruit the principal adductor musculature, particularly the masseter, temporalis and medial pterygoid, while opening and protective reductions in force involve muscles including the digastric and lateral pterygoid. The system does not simply switch between an open jaw and maximum closure. During functional chewing the dog repeatedly generates, reduces and redirects force while the physical properties of the substrate change beneath the teeth.1, 8

A piece of skin stretches differently from muscle. Fascia separates along different planes. Tendon and connective tissue resist differently again. Cartilage, joints and bone create their own combinations of hardness, deformation and failure. As material loosens, slips, fractures, elongates or changes orientation, the dog must alter bite location, head position, muscle recruitment, direction of pull or the way the forelimbs and paws stabilise the item.

The mouth is also sensing that process continuously.

The periodontal ligament is not merely structural support for the tooth. Canine research has shown that afferent input from periodontal mechanoreceptors contributes to the development of rhythmic chewing, while the broader mastication literature describes periodontal pressoreceptors, masticatory-muscle mechanoreceptors and oral sensation as feedback inputs involved in bite-force and chewing regulation. Quinn and colleagues' 2025 review brings those mechanisms together in the canine context and describes how sensory feedback informs bite force, chew bouts and the interaction between morphology, substrate and the masticatory apparatus.1, 9

This makes resistance biologically interesting because resistance is also information.

When the substrate yields, the dog receives one set of sensory consequences. When it holds, stretches, begins to separate or suddenly releases, the consequences change and the feeding apparatus responds. What looks externally like repetitive chewing or pulling can therefore be a changing sensory-motor sequence in which the animal tests a material, adjusts force, changes tooth position, recruits different parts of the apparatus and modifies strategy as the task develops.1, 9

The neck, shoulders, forelimbs and paws extend that apparatus beyond the mouth. A dog can lower or rotate the head, shift its stance, lean away from the item, brace through the forequarters, restrain material with the paws and use body weight to create or redirect leverage. The canine-chewing literature specifically recognises forelimb and paw use for orienting and holding items, including pulling with the incisors while the paws stabilise the substrate.1 In a natural feeding context, the carcass, terrain, attached tissues and the animal's own body can all contribute counterforce. In the domestic environment, those same mechanics may be recreated accidentally against flooring, furniture, paws or whatever structure the dog can find.

BoneZone® makes one part of that system deliberate.

It allows stable external resistance to become an experimental variable, rather than an uncontrolled feature of the background.

That is substantially more interesting than asking whether dogs like chewing on something attached to a post, is it not?

During development, Phoenix appeared to do more than simply become accustomed to an object being held still. From my recollection, his earliest interactions involved more obvious attempts to pull the entire item from the clamp, yet those extraction attempts diminished relatively quickly while pulling itself continued.

What seemed to change was the apparent function of the movement.

Phoenix increasingly appeared to use the resistance of the secured item to tension, strip and tear material from it rather than simply trying to recover the complete item. We have high-resolution video showing this behaviour, which means researchers do not have to rely upon my description alone.

I also observed changes in paw use, grip position, working angle and body positioning as he interacted with the apparatus. My impression is that some strategies may subsequently appear when he handles loose items, but that observation is far more uncertain because it was never recorded under a prospective research protocol designed to test transfer or learning.

This is important because a pull is not automatically evidence of one underlying state. Repeated pulling could represent extraction attempts, exploration, frustration, learning, functional use of resistance or some combination of them, and greater engagement or greater force should never automatically be interpreted as improved welfare.

The same caution applies to every observation I have made. Phoenix is one dog, much of the early development was not conducted under experimental conditions, and I am the inventor of the apparatus. Those limitations do not make the observations worthless, but they establish the point at which independent investigation needs to take over.

What I can offer is a specific phenomenon, functioning hardware, a substantial development history and enough evidence to formulate questions that can actually be tested.

How rapidly does behaviour change across repeated exposures? Does the distribution of bite positions change? Does paw recruitment change when external resistance is available? Do dogs alter head angle, stance or pulling direction as they learn how the resistance behaves? Does stable presentation allow different teeth or different portions of the dental arcade to participate in the task? What happens to force direction as tissue becomes progressively detached? Does the animal learn a more efficient separation strategy, and does any part of that strategy transfer to later loose-item handling?

Those are questions for people with the methods to separate observation from explanation.

The 2025 review of canine chewing by Quinn and colleagues makes this particularly timely because it gathers evidence concerning chewing as part of food acquisition, oral and dental function, physiological regulation and welfare, while explicitly recognising that significant questions remain unanswered. The authors describe the paws, jaws, tongue, lips and teeth collectively as a chewing apparatus and examine grasping, stripping, tearing, cutting, cracking and crushing within a much wider functional repertoire than the everyday phrase "giving the dog something to chew" normally suggests.1

Their subsequent 2026 owner survey begins connecting that biology with the domestic environment. Among 655 respondents, reported chewing opportunities varied with characteristics including age, body size, household and environmental circumstances, while concerns about teeth, veterinary or breeder advice and the mess and smell associated with bones were identified among the barriers influencing provision.2

That is precisely where their research meets the problem BoneZone® was built to address.

If a feeding opportunity disappears because the dog has no outdoor access, because a substantial item moves around the house, because the owner cannot control where it goes, because cleanup is unpleasant or because supervision and retrieval become difficult, the disappearance of the opportunity does not tell us that the underlying behaviour lacks value. It tells us that the human environment has become part of the limiting system.

The engineering question then becomes a welfare question: rather than accepting the domestic barrier as fixed, can we redesign the physical environment around the behaviour?

This is where the conversation becomes more difficult to treat as merely an inventor looking for research around his own product, because contemporary welfare science has already supplied the concepts against which the question should be judged.

The Five Domains Model does not treat good welfare as simply the absence of obvious suffering. Nutrition, physical environment, health and behavioural interactions contribute to the animal's mental experience, and contemporary development of the Behavioural Interactions domain explicitly considers opportunities for animals to exercise agency.3, 11

Agency in this context concerns voluntary, self-generated and goal-directed behaviour that the animal is motivated to perform, with researchers discussing qualities including choice, control, challenge and the development of competence.3

That language is crucial here because a controlled feeding station does not necessarily reduce agency, simply because a human has created the boundaries of the event. Human management and animal agency are not automatic opposites.

The owner can determine the item, location, mounting conditions, session duration and overall boundaries while the dog determines whether to approach, whether to continue, where to place its bite, how much force to apply, whether to brace with its paws, which direction to pull, when to reposition, when to pause and when to disengage.

Good environmental design can therefore constrain the hazardous or inconvenient parts of an activity while expanding the useful behavioural choices available within those constraints.3

The related concept of telos makes the question even sharper. Quinn and colleagues explicitly discuss chewing as part of canine telos and argue that opportunities to perform behaviours within the dog's normal repertoire can contribute to positive welfare, while deprivation or minimal provision may carry welfare consequences.1

Telos, however, has little practical meaning unless opportunity exists.

A dog can possess all of the anatomical equipment required for gripping, tearing, bracing, manipulating and adjusting force, yet it cannot choose to perform those behaviours if its environment never presents food in a form that permits them. A behavioural capacity can remain biologically present while becoming functionally unavailable.

That distinction is fundamental. The absence of a behaviour from everyday domestic life does not necessarily establish that the behaviour ceased to matter; sometimes it means we removed the opportunity required for its expression.

RSPCA Australia provides a useful example because its published welfare position is not ambiguous about the importance of positive experience. Its explanation of the Five Domains says that merely minimising negative states may produce only a neutral welfare condition and that a good life requires opportunities for positive experiences, including interactions that allow and encourage animals to make choices and express rewarding behaviours.4

Its own canine guidance says that chewing is normal behaviour, that dogs should be given opportunities to chew, that chewing forms part of normal feeding and exploratory behaviour and is important to physical and mental health. More importantly for this discussion, it acknowledges that a dog's motivation to chew may not be fulfilled when the dog is fed only commercial food in a bowl.5

At the same time, its general feeding guidance recommends commercial food as the dietary basis, advises against bones and raw meat because of recognised hazards and directs owners toward products such as dental chews as an alternative where entertainment and dental cleaning are desired.6

Each of those statements can be sincerely held, and legitimate hazards including dental fracture, gastrointestinal obstruction and microbiological exposure deserve to be taken seriously, but together they expose an unresolved question.1, 5, 6

If the welfare framework recognises natural and rewarding behaviour, positive experience, agency, choice and opportunity, if its dog-specific guidance recognises chewing as part of normal feeding behaviour and accepts that bowl-only feeding may leave the motivation incompletely fulfilled, then the logical response to risk should be to investigate the variables determining whether and how the opportunity can be provided responsibly.

It should not be enough to collapse the entire category into the shorthand that "bones are bad" and stop there.

Substrate hardness is of importance, along with geometry, bite location, force direction, the dog's craniofacial morphology, dental condition, age, size, experience, duration and supervision.1, 7, 8, 10 Whether the item is loose or externally stabilised may also matter, which is precisely the variable we are proposing should be investigated.

Canine teeth themselves illustrate why this needs more precision than a slogan. Force direction can alter fracture pattern, while bite force differs across the dental arcade because mechanical advantage changes with position relative to the temporomandibular joint and the masticatory musculature.1, 7, 10 If external resistance changes where a dog bites, how it braces, the direction in which it pulls or the way force is distributed during tissue separation, then presentation may be relevant to both functional opportunity and risk.

We do not yet know the answer.

That is an argument for research, not for pretending the variable does not exist.

This is the point at which I think animal-welfare organisations, veterinary researchers, universities and the wider companion-animal industry deserve a respectful, but direct challenge.

Nobody receiving this letter is being asked to accept that BoneZone® improves welfare simply because I believe the question is important. Nor am I suggesting that every organisation confronted with a new idea is obliged to fund it or attach its name to it.

What I am asking is that the principles already used to define good animal welfare be applied consistently when a practical proposal crosses an unfamiliar professional or commercial boundary.

Once an organisation has been shown a plausible way of investigating whether an acknowledged behavioural opportunity can be restored under more controlled domestic conditions, declining even to engage with the underlying question is no longer indistinguishable from never having encountered it.

At that point, the reason for disengagement becomes a different set of questions.

Perhaps the biological premise is considered weak, in which case I would like to hear the scientific argument, or perhaps stable external resistance introduces an overlooked risk, in which case identifying and testing that risk would be useful.

Perhaps another apparatus or experimental design could isolate the variable more effectively, in which case I would welcome the improvement, or perhaps the question belongs with another discipline, institution or funding body, in which case a referral would move the conversation forward.

There is also a legitimate institutional question that should not be treated as forbidden simply because it is uncomfortable. Companion-animal welfare exists inside a large commercial system involving formulated foods, veterinary services, pharmaceuticals, dental products, chew products, enrichment products, professional organisations, sponsorships, education and research funding. Petelli Ventures is commercial too, and our interest in BoneZone® should be disclosed openly.

Commercial involvement does not prove improper influence on anybody's part, but neither should established commercial structures become invisible simply because they are familiar.

If existing funding relationships, professional categories, industry partnerships or entrenched infrastructure affect which questions organisations are willing to examine, then transparency about those constraints serves animal welfare better than silence. If they do not affect the decision, then the proposition before us can be assessed on its scientific merits.

The uncomfortable alternative is a welfare system that speaks confidently about telos, agency, behavioural opportunity and positive experience until one of those concepts points toward a question that does not fit comfortably inside the existing feeding architecture.

That is precisely the inconsistency this open letter is intended to expose without pretending we already know why it exists.

I am not asking a university to adopt a finished experiment written by a manufacturer, because the entire purpose of seeking independent involvement is to let appropriate expertise determine which questions, controls, measurements and limitations are most important.

The mechanical questions alone could support several lines of investigation. Researchers could compare bite location and dental engagement between loose and stabilised presentation, examine posture and force-vector changes, quantify paw recruitment, observe head and neck positioning, characterise extraction versus stripping behaviour and investigate whether stable resistance changes the distribution or duration of work across a feeding session.

There are sensory-motor questions as well. Does repeated exposure produce measurable changes in how quickly the dog establishes a functional bite position? Does the sequence of gripping, loading, release and regripping change? Do dogs adjust strategy as they acquire information about the predictable resistance of the apparatus, and could those changes provide evidence of learning or developing competence rather than simple habituation?

Biomechanics specialists could investigate how presentation interacts with craniofacial morphology, dental condition, bite position and substrate properties. Force does not need to be treated as a single number because direction, duration, point of application and the changing mechanical properties of the food, may be at least as important as magnitude.

Welfare researchers could examine whether dogs voluntarily approach, disengage and return, whether they demonstrate preference between presentations, whether the challenge remains within an individual's competence and whether apparent persistence reflects positive engagement, frustration or something else entirely.

Veterinary researchers could establish exclusion criteria, inappropriate substrates and stopping rules rather than treating risk as an afterthought. An experimental programme that identifies where BoneZone® should not be used would be just as valuable as one finding circumstances in which the system provides a useful opportunity.

Human-animal interaction researchers could examine whether controlling location and movement actually changes owners' willingness to provide substantial foods, whether cleaning burden changes, whether supervision improves and whether any apparent benefit survives after novelty has passed.

Environmental-health researchers could measure contact and contamination rather than relying upon assumptions in either direction.

A defined feeding station does not sterilise raw food, remove microbiological hazards or create a hygiene guarantee, but an item that remains within a controlled location presents a different environmental management problem from one dragged between soil, flooring, bedding and furniture.

Several disciplines can therefore examine the same physical event without any of them being asked to accept our interpretation in advance.

I have not identified another manufactured system offering the combination we have developed: stable structural mounting, adjustable presentation and a configurable gripping mechanism for appropriate substantial and irregular feeding items.

More importantly for researchers, this is not a sketch requiring a university to design our hardware before it can investigate the idea. We have functioning apparatus, years of practical development, existing demonstration footage, known design constraints and observations that can be scrutinised against the physical system that produced them.

Stable resistance can therefore be introduced as a deliberate experimental condition rather than remaining an accidental property of the floor, the dog's paws, furniture, terrain or the weight of a loose item.

That is the research opportunity.

A team interested in the problem would have the unusual chance to help define the first independent programme around Structural Feeding™, including the questions that deserve priority, the measurements capable of answering them and the limitations that need to be recognised from the beginning.

That is considerably more useful than asking a researcher to put a university logo beside a product endorsement.

Behaviour scientists can investigate learning, motivation and manipulation strategy. Veterinary and biomechanics specialists can examine substrate suitability, craniofacial differences, bite position, loading and dental consequences. Welfare scientists can examine agency, preference, positive affective engagement and the distinction between useful challenge and frustration. Oral-health researchers can investigate the tooth-food interface, plaque and calculus disturbance, salivary effects and microbial changes without making claims that the apparatus itself prevents dental disease. Human-animal interaction researchers can examine whether the physical infrastructure changes what owners are actually willing and able to provide.

Welfare organisations bring another form of expertise because they encounter the practical constraints of households, kennels, shelters and rehoming environments every day. Their contribution does not have to begin with funding a trial; identifying an overlooked welfare variable, a critical safety concern, a suitable researcher or even a better question would already constitute meaningful engagement.

The pet-care industry should also have an interest because enormous effort has gone into understanding what dogs consume while much less attention has been given to the physical experience through which consumption occurs.

Puzzle feeders, chew products, enrichment devices and dental products already acknowledge parts of that experience. Structural Feeding™ asks whether some of those fragmented functions deserve to be examined again as components of feeding itself.

Modern housing changed the setting in which dogs eat, but it did not erase the biological apparatus with which they eat. The practical challenge is therefore not to reproduce every uncontrolled feature of a wild feeding event, but to determine which worthwhile opportunities can be preserved or restored within the domestic conditions we have created.

We have working hardware in the Bundaberg region of Queensland, existing demonstration footage and years of design decisions and practical observations to discuss. Interested researchers can begin by examining those materials and the apparatus itself before anybody commits resources to a formal programme.

We are moving into our first commercial production stage, so we do not have an unrestricted inventory available for research distribution, but where there is a genuine project fit we can discuss early access as equipment becomes available, limited loans or in-kind support, or units purchased within a project's budget.

A serious programme will require people, time, appropriate approvals, funding and disciplines I do not possess. If an individual researcher cannot take it on, a school, centre, welfare organisation, postgraduate programme or funding partner may know somebody who can.

Our commercial interest in BoneZone® and Structural Feeding™ will remain explicit. That interest should not give us control over methods, interpretation or publication, and I would expect adverse, null and positive results to be treated with exactly the same honesty.

The apparatus also does not remove the need for individual veterinary judgement, appropriate item selection, sound installation, supervision or the dog's ability to disengage. Those factors belong inside the research question rather than being hidden outside it.

You do not need to agree with my interpretation to contact me, and you do not need to believe BoneZone® is the final answer to recognise that the variable is worth examining.

You may see a viable pilot study, a student project, a biomechanical question, a welfare experiment, an oral-health investigation, an overlooked hazard, a funding pathway or a connection to work already underway. You may also believe there is a flaw in the premise or know of evidence that materially changes it.

Any of those responses would move the question forward.

What is becoming more difficult to understand is the absence of engagement altogether when the pieces are now sitting so visibly beside one another.

We have a contemporary welfare model that values agency, choice, challenge, competence and positive behavioural opportunity.3, 11 We have published canine research placing chewing within telos and identifying it as an important part of the dog's feeding and welfare repertoire.1 We have owner data showing that practical and environmental barriers influence what opportunities dogs receive.2 We have a detailed biological mechanism involving differentiated teeth, masticatory musculature, sensory feedback, changing bite force, whole-body leverage and continuous adaptation to the physical properties of food.1, 7, 8, 9 We have recognised hazards that deserve variable-specific investigation rather than slogans,1, 5, 6, 10 and we have a working piece of infrastructure capable of making stable external resistance a controllable condition.

The question is no longer whether somebody can imagine an experiment.

The experiment now has a physical form, and the biological rationale for asking it is already in the literature.

If telos matters only until providing the opportunity becomes inconvenient, then telos has become rhetoric rather than welfare practice. If agency matters only inside familiar enrichment categories, we should say so. If behavioural opportunity is genuinely part of a good life, then the physical conditions required for that opportunity deserve examination, particularly when those conditions may be engineered rather than simply abandoned.

I have observed enough to believe this deserves independent scrutiny, and I have built something that makes the central mechanical variable visible and controllable. I am not asking the welfare, veterinary or research community to agree with me before looking.

I am asking it to look.

If the opportunity is valuable but the modern environment makes it difficult, do we simply remove the opportunity, or do we investigate what becomes possible when we redesign the environment around it?

That is the question I want somebody else to control.

Contact me directly at hello@petelli.com. You can see the apparatus on the BoneZone® product page, review the research background in We Built the Hardware, Then We Found the Literature, and browse the wider BoneZone Bone Science collection.

Founder, Inventor and Principal Product Developer

Petelli Ventures

Queensland, Australia

1 Quinn R, Masters S, Starling MJ, White PJ, Mills K, Raubenheimer D, McGreevy P. Functional significance and welfare implications of chewing in dogs (Canis familiaris). Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025;12:1499933. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1499933. Read the paper.

2 Quinn R, Masters S, Starling M, Zaki S, Mills K, White P, Thomson P, Arhant C, McGreevy P. Cross sectional survey: Owner-reported influences on dogs' opportunities to chew. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2026;297:106927. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2026.106927. Read the study.

3 Littlewood KE, Heslop MV, Cobb ML. The agency domain and behavioral interactions: assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023;10:1284869. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1284869. Read the paper.

4 RSPCA Australia. What are the Five Domains of animal welfare? RSPCA Knowledgebase. Updated 19 January 2024. Read the guidance.

5 RSPCA Australia. My puppy is chewing everything, what should I do? RSPCA Knowledgebase. Updated 17 June 2024. Read the guidance.

6 RSPCA Australia. What should I feed my dog? RSPCA Knowledgebase. Updated 21 August 2024. Read the guidance.

7 Ellis JL, Thomason J, Kebreab E, Zubair K, France J. Cranial dimensions and forces of biting in the domestic dog. Journal of Anatomy. 2009;214(3):362-373. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.01042.x. Read the paper.

8 Kim SE, Arzi B, Garcia TC, Verstraete FJM. Bite Forces and Their Measurement in Dogs and Cats. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018;5:76. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00076. Read the review.

9 Iinuma M, Yoshida S, Funakoshi M. A role of periodontal sensation in development of rhythmical chewing in dogs. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology. 1994;107(2):389-395. DOI: 10.1016/0300-9629(94)90397-2. PubMed record.

10 Goldschmidt S, Zimmerman C, Collins C, Hetzel S, Ploeg H-L, Soukup JW. The Influence of Force Direction on the Fracture Pattern and Fracture Resistance of Canine Teeth in Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 2017;34(1):8-17. DOI: 10.1177/0898756417705229. Read the paper.

11 Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals. 2020;10(10):1870. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101870. Read the paper.

BoneZone® Structural Feeding™ Canine Enrichment Apparatus & Chewing Station: Product page.

For the full explanation of Structural Feeding™, including the principles, terminology and thinking behind the concept:

and.....

For the deeper research, educational material, feeding mechanics, evidence, articles and developing knowledge base behind the concept:

and....

and....