To the Scientific Community
THE EXPERIMENT I WANT
SOMEONE ELSE TO CONTROL
An open letter to scientists, veterinary professionals, animal-welfare organisations and the people who lead and fund their work.
By Peter Britten, co-Founder, Inventor and Principal Product Developer, Petelli Ventures
To those studying how dogs live, learn, feed and experience the environments we create for them:
I have a working piece of hardware, nearly three years of development behind it, and observations that deserve a more rigorous examination than I can give them alone.
I am looking for people who recognise a research opportunity in that combination.
The starting point is straightforward. A dog can grip, pull, tear, strip, gnaw and manipulate a substantial feeding item. When it pulls, something must supply the opposing force. With a loose item, that resistance may come from its paws, the ground, a corner, furniture or the weight of the item itself.
What changes when a purpose-built structure supplies that counterforce instead?
And if a substantial feeding item becomes practical to manage in a home where it previously was not, what opportunity might that create for the dog?
Those are the questions behind this letter.
The household problem came before the research question
BoneZone® began with Phoenix, my Belgian Malinois, and a problem many dog owners will recognise: feeding items travelling across the property, contacting unwanted surfaces, disappearing into places they did not belong and becoming difficult to supervise or retrieve.
I approached it through engineering and practical risk management. I wanted control over the feeding environment while leaving the dog room to interact with an appropriate item.
The result is BoneZone®:
BoneZone® is a modular canine Structural Feeding™, chewing and enrichment system designed to secure appropriate bones, substantial foods and long-duration chews to a stable physical structure. By supplying controlled external resistance and a defined feeding location, BoneZone® can allow a dog to grip, pull, tear, strip, gnaw, chew and manipulate a suitable item while the owner retains greater control over height, movement, environmental contact, hygiene management, supervision and removal. It does not prescribe the dog's diet or make an unsuitable food safe; it provides a controllable physical feeding environment in which appropriate feeding and chewing behaviours can occur.
The structure supplies counterforce. The dog supplies force.
Structural Feeding™ is our name for deliberately considering that physical relationship: an appropriate item retaining useful structure, a dog interacting with it, and a stable structure providing resistance.
It can sit beside an existing diet. It does not require every meal to become a task or every dog to be offered bones.
What I have actually seen
During development, Phoenix did more than become accustomed to an object being held still.
From my recollection, his earliest attempts to pull an entire item out of the clamp diminished within the first few uses. Pulling continued, but its apparent purpose changed. He increasingly pulled against the fixed item to strip or tear material from it.
That distinction matters. The same visible action can represent an attempt to remove an object or a way of working material from an object expected to remain fixed.
I also noticed changes in paw use, grip position and how he worked from different angles while the apparatus stabilised the item. My impression is that some changes in paw use may also carry over when he later handles loose items. That last observation is especially uncertain and needs deliberate comparison.
These are observations from development with one dog, including recollections that were not recorded under a research protocol. They cannot tell us how other dogs will respond, what caused every change, or whether any particular change improves welfare.
But they are specific enough to investigate.
How quickly does the interaction change? What is the dog learning? Does the food, height or prior experience alter the response? Does the behaviour persist away from the apparatus?
I would like somebody equipped to distinguish those possibilities to look.
Research has already brought the domestic barrier into view
The 2025 review of canine chewing by Quinn and colleagues identifies important gaps in our understanding of chewing, welfare and how much opportunity dogs may need. The 2026 owner survey then identifies associations involving housing and chew provision, alongside reported barriers including mess and smell. Neither paper tested BoneZone®. Together, they give a clear reason to examine the interaction between feeding opportunity and the environment in which an owner must provide it. 2025 review, 2026 owner survey.
That is where their published questions meet our practical work.
If mess and uncontrolled movement make an otherwise appropriate feeding opportunity difficult to provide, can we change the physical arrangement instead of simply abandoning the opportunity?
Containment does not eliminate smell, microbial hazards or the need to clean. But an item that stays in a defined location presents a different management problem from an item carried between soil, flooring and furniture. Whether that difference changes what owners actually provide is something we can measure.
There is wider interest in asking what dogs themselves gain from life with us. Melbourne's dedicated canine-welfare fellowship, for example, was established to investigate canine wellbeing and the human attitudes surrounding it. That is the kind of interdisciplinary attention this question warrants. University of Melbourne.
Questions worth putting the apparatus in front of
I am not asking a university to adopt a finished experiment written by a manufacturer. I am asking whether the apparatus could help answer questions that matter to its own researchers.
What changes mechanically? With the dog and item as comparable as practicable, does stable presentation alter gripping, pulling, tearing, bracing, paw use, posture or bite placement? Which changes depend on the item or mounting position?
What changes through learning? Do early extraction attempts give way to functional stripping and tearing? How many exposures does that take, and does any learned strategy transfer to later loose-item handling?
What does the dog choose? Does it voluntarily approach, disengage and return? Can apparent engagement be distinguished from frustration or repeated attempts to recover the whole item? Longer sessions and greater force should not automatically be scored as better.
What changes for the household? Does the arrangement affect actual provision, supervision, item travel, cleaning burden or willingness to offer suitable items indoors? A favourable survey response is not the same as a sustained change in practice.
Which dogs, items and setups are unsuitable? What happens to loading on teeth and the apparatus? What unexpected interactions arise? Where should a session stop or a different activity be selected?
Which differences matter to welfare? A mechanical change is not automatically a benefit. Behavioural, clinical and welfare expertise need to meet at that point. Environmental contamination is another question again and would require its own measurements.
A team might begin with one of these questions, combine disciplines or propose a better question altogether. That is precisely why this invitation is open.
A working system, not just an idea to discuss
I have not identified a manufactured alternative offering the combination we have developed: structural mounting, adjustable presentation and a configurable grip for appropriate substantial, irregular feeding items and long-duration chews.
The important point is that we now have functioning hardware and a development history that researchers can inspect.
We are not asking them to begin with a sketch and build our product for us. We are offering an existing physical system that may make an experimental variable easier to introduce, compare and observe.
An interested group has the opportunity to help shape the first independent research programme using BoneZone®, including the questions, measures and limitations that matter. That is a more substantial opportunity than adding a logo to a product endorsement.
This is a question for more than one profession
Behaviour scientists can examine learning and manipulation strategy. Veterinary and biomechanics specialists can examine item suitability, posture and loading. Welfare researchers can ask what the dog values and how to interpret its experience. Human-animal interaction researchers can investigate what owners will actually adopt.
Welfare organisations also see the practical constraints of homes, kennels, shelters and rehoming. Their contribution need not begin by running a trial. Identifying the right question, the wrong assumption, an overlooked obstacle or a suitable research partner would already be useful.
And to the pet-care industry: substantial effort goes into what animals consume. Why should the physical experience of consuming it receive less attention?
Puzzle feeders, chew products and enrichment tools already address parts of that experience. The question here is specific: what becomes possible when an appropriate substantial item is supported by a stable external structure?
Modern housing has changed the setting. It has not made the dog's existing feeding repertoire irrelevant. The challenge is to consider how suitable opportunities can fit that setting, alongside nutrition, clinical judgment and practical management.
What we can offer, and what remains yours to decide
We have working hardware in the Bundaberg region of Queensland, existing demonstration footage and years of design decisions and practical observations to discuss. An interested team can start with those materials or an inspection.
We are moving into our first commercial production stage. We do not have unrestricted research inventory ready to dispatch. If there is a genuine fit, we can discuss early access as availability permits, a limited loan or in-kind contribution, or equipment purchased within a project's budget. Quantities, timing and terms would be agreed around an actual need.
A serious research programme also needs people, time, resources and appropriate approvals. If an individual researcher cannot take it on now, a school, centre, welfare organisation or funding partner may be able to identify another route.
We have a commercial interest in BoneZone® and Structural Feeding™. That should be disclosed openly. It should not give us control over methods, interpretation or publication. We would welcome useful technical feedback and expect adverse, null and positive findings to be treated honestly.
The apparatus does not remove the need for veterinary assessment, appropriate item selection, sound installation, supervision or a dog's ability to disengage. Those are part of the question, not details to be left outside it.
An invitation anyone can answer
You do not need to agree with my interpretation to contact me.
You might see a useful pilot, a student project, a link to work already underway, a critical design question, a funding pathway or a reason to investigate something I have missed. You may know the person who should see this.
The immediate request is a conversation about fit, not a commitment to a study.
I have observed enough to believe the question deserves attention. I have built something that allows the mechanics to be demonstrated. I would now like independent expertise to establish what follows from that.
If the opportunity is worth considering but the modern home makes it awkward, should the opportunity disappear - or should we examine what changing the environment makes possible?
Contact me directly at hello@petelli.com. You can see the apparatus and its current production position on the BoneZone® product page.
Peter Britten
co-Founder, Inventor and Principal Product Developer
Petelli Ventures
Queensland, Australia
Sources
- Quinn R and colleagues. Functional significance and welfare implications of chewing in dogs (Canis familiaris). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2025. Read the review.
- Quinn R and colleagues. Cross sectional survey: Owner-reported influences on dogs' opportunities to chew. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2026;297:106927. Read the study.
- University of Melbourne. Dog wellbeing the heart of new Fellowship in Canine Welfare Science. 22 February 2024. Read the announcement.
More from News & Information
The Forgotten Half of Feeding
Nutrition asks what the food contains and what the body receives. Feeding also includes the physi...
Read Article →
Man's Best Friend. But Is a Bone a Dog's Best Friend?
It is much harder to answer the population-level question: How frequently does a serious choki...
Read Article →
If the Dog Pulls, What Pushes Back?
Structural Feeding™ is Petelli's term for a defined companion-animal feeding approach in which ap...
Read Article →
Comments