ODOR INHIBITING PET LITTER

Abstract: The addition of urease negative bacteria to sodium smectite clay minerals in pet litter inhibits growth of urease positive bacteria for a period of several days, thereby retarding formation of ammonia and other obnoxious odors. Approximately fifty percent sodium bentonite in the litter causes the litter to clump upon wetting, maintaining the urea in contact with the treated clay and also serving as a buffer to favor growth of the urease negative bacteria.

Description: ODOR INHIBΓΠNG PET LΠTER TECHNICAL FIELD The invention generally relates to animal husbandry, especially to material for absorbing moisture from waste products. The invention discloses a clay based pet litter in which a bacterial element is mixed with certain types of clay to inhibit formation of ammonia from urea for a period of several days. BACKGROUND ART Household pets often are kept indoors and deposit their wastes in an absorbent composition, referred to as pet litter or cat litter. Half a century ago, indoor pets commonly used a box of sand to receive their wastes. Since then, pet litter has evolved into a specialty market, which began with the use of industrial absorbents. Today, a suitable base material for producing pet litter is clay, which is inexpensive, absorbs liquids, and is easily disposed of, such as in the garden, or in the trash. Many clays are used as pet litters because of their excellent absorptive qualities. Among them, attapulgite clay, which is hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate, is one of the most commonly used pet litters. Similarly, fuller's earth is a combination of attapulgite clay and bentonite clay. Bentonite, which is a montmorillonite clay, is formed of hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate and is widely used as pet litter. Its two common forms, sodium bentonite and calcium bentonite, are distinguished by having either sodium or calcium cations. Calcium bentonite, also known as southern bentonite, is an acid activatable clay that can be treated with hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid to significantly increase its surface area and enhance it absorptive properties. It is the better absorbent of the two. Sodium bentonite has the ability to swell several times and forms gel-like masses in water, while calcium bentonite swells much less. Sodium bentonite also is known as Wyoming or western bentonite. Two other common pet litters are kaolin, or china clay, and sedimentary opal clay mixtures. Kaolin is a hydrous aluminum silicate of the Kaolinite mineral group, having the formula Al2O 3 '2SiO 2 '2H 2 O. A commercial opal clay mixture contains sedimentary opal. Opal clay contains about 20 percent more silicon dioxide than is found in bentonite and has high porosity, which provides a high absorption capacity. Both clays are commonly sold as pet litter. The process of producing a clay based pet litter is similar with any type of clay material. Raw clay, which typically contains about 35 percent water, is mined from an open pit Large earth movers deliver the clay to trucks, which haul it to a plant where it is dried in a kiln and crushed in several stages. During processing, different clays and other ingredients can be blended to produce a pet litter having special qualities, such as clumpability or odor control. After blending, the product granules are sorted by screening into various sizes. The final pet litter can be a mixture of sizes, which is more absorbent than when all granules are the same size. The usefulness and performance of ordinary clay or other litter materials has been improved in three general areas. First, it has been discovered that litter is easier to keep clean if wet particles agglomerate or clump together, making it easier to remove the spent litter and waste products from the unspent litter. Second, several experimenters have added chemical or biological agents to litter in an attempt to digest the animal wastes or otherwise reduce odors. Along these same lines, litter can be scented to mask odor. Third, special litter materials have been developed that are especially absorbent. Several patents have issued in each of these areas. The first type of patents disclose several techniques for clumping litter particles when wetted. For example, U.S. Patent 5,216,980 to Kiebke combines granular clay with a gluten containing hydrophilic media. U.S. Patent 5,183,010 to Raymond et al uses potato starch, gum, or polyvinyl alcohol to bind wet particles, plus boron to accelerate hardening. U.S. Patent 5,152,250 to Loeb mixes granular litter with grain flour to cause agglomeration and mineral oil to cause the flour to adhere to the grains. U.S. Patent 5,094,189 to Aylen et al adds potato starch to bentonite clay. U.S. Patent 5,000,115 to Hughes mentions that certain natural bentonite clays, alone, are capable of clumping when wetted. U.S. Patent 4,685,420 to Stuart uses a polymer in clay to form a gelled agglomerate when wetted. These and other methods of causing spent litter to clump offer an improvement over non-clumping litter. Because only wet litter forms clumps, the spent litter and the waste contained by it can be completely removed from the litter box, while permitting unused litter to remain behind. Thus, clumping litter is efficient and economical, allowing both solid and liquid waste to be removed from the litter box without requiring that the balance of clean litter also be removed. Further, clumps are easy to remove from a litter box, which makes the cleaning job much more pleasant and raises the expectation that this job will be done more frequendy. Consequently, it is expected diat clumping litter results in decreased waste odor in the home, due to the frequent and complete cleanings. The second type of patents add a chemical agent that is intended to reduce odor. For example, U.S. Patent 5,303,676 to Lawson combines bentonite with sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate coated with a mixture of mineral oil and siliceous material to deodorize the litter. ZnO can be added as a bactericide. U.S. Patent 4,607,594 to Thacker combines bentonite with perlite, which has been treated with carbonate, bicarbonate or hydrogen phosphate. U.S. Patent 4,517,919 to Benjamin et al adds undecylenic acid, a fungicide, to bentonite or other base material. U.S. Patent 4,494,481 to Rodriguez et al uses transition metal salts in the litter box to control urine odor. U.S. Patent 4,459,368 to Jaffee et al mixes calcium bentonite with calcium sulfate dihydrate to control odor. U.S. Patent 4,437,429 to Goldstein et al uses zeolites to control odor in bentonite. U.S. Patent 3,941,090 to Fry adds cedar bound with alfalfa. U.S. Patent 3,916,831 to Fisher uses popcorn as litter, with added bactericides. U.S. Patent 3,892,846 to Wortham uses Al, Zn, Sn, Ca or Mg salt of an hydroxamic acid in litter to resist odor by inhibiting bacterial decomposition of urea to ammonia when wetted by urine. U.S. Patent 3,789,797 to Brewer et al combines bentonite and alfalfa, which supplies chlorophyll. U.S. Patent 3,636,927 to Baum adds camphane compounds, which smell like cedar oil. U.S. Patent 4,844,010 to Ducharme et al uses cyclodextrin in clay to absorb nitrogenous compounds. U.S. Patent 4,704,989 to Rosenfeld adds absorptive materials to clay litter, deodorizers and bactericides. U.S. Patent 4,671,208 to Smith adds limestone to litter to neutralize urine and raise pH. U.S. Patent 4,465,019 to Johnson adds dried citrus pulp to litter. Japan Patent 3044-822 discloses an animal litter composed of clay and a water insoluble chemical deodorant, which may be an organic acid and its salt. Japan 3020-100 discloses use of bentonite, zeolite, or cristobalite plus deodorizer. EPO Publication 76,447 reduces ammonia content of air in animal stalls by lowering pH, through addition of a mixture of urea phosphate, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid or alkali metal hydrogen sulphate and an organic acid. The low pH suppresses pathogenic bacteria by encouraging growth of acidophilic organisms such as lactobacilli, increasing lactic acid content. EPO Publication 39,522 manufactures litter from cellulosic fibers, pellet-zed, with added fungicides and bactericides. These chemical agents may achieve success, although it appears that some could be expensive and others might require large concentrations to effectively treat any significant volume of animal wastes. Some of the chemicals might cause environmental problems, especially if allowed to build up by disposal in a dump site or garden over a long period of time. For this reason, alone, the use of deodorizers, bactericides, fungicides, acids, metal salts, and perhaps other similar materials appears to be a poor choice. In addition, pets walk through the litter box. Thus, these chemicals will be in contact with the pet's feet for substantial periods of time, which might cause irritation or other health problems. As pets groom themselves, the chemicals may in ingested. Further, the pet may track these chemicals through all areas of the house, spreading potential problems to human inhabitants, as well. A few patents have attempted to use biologic agents to reduce odors. For example, U.S. Patent 5,154,594 to Gamlen combines clay with digestive bacteria to break down the waste. Japan Patent 2154-629 combines multiple types of bacteria on a sawdust growth medium to break down ammonia, which is a bacterial decomposition product and major odor component, and other excrement and thereby prevent odor. Japan Patent 1085-125 discloses the combination of sawdust and thermophilic bacteria on the floor of a cattle shed to control odor. The mixture is placed in a compost shed for several weeks to produce mature compost Soviet Union 1,091,889 discloses an animal bedding made of composted manure. Thermophilic bacteria in the manure cause an increased temperature that kills disease microorganisms. After composting, the manure is reused as bedding. Denmark Patent 86,908 combines cellulose and coccidium-retarding agent plus a protein rich material. These biologic agent patents seem unlikely to be completely successful, since composting or digesting wastes produces odors. The diird type of patent in which absorbency is increased, is represented by United States Patent No. 4,657,881 to Crampton, which makes highly absorptive cat litter from clay fines that are compacted and then broken into larger particles. Absorbency is increased by adding an antideposition agent, which might include Wyoming bentonite, which is known to form a gel when wetted. The content of United States Patent No. 4,591,581 to Crampton is similar. Improving absorbency would be expected to make a litter more efficient since liquid wastes might be captured in the granular material rather than being allowed to pool at the bottom of the litter box. These many approaches to improved handling of animal wastes demonstrate that controlling odor of animal wastes is long standing problem. Some of the approaches deal with specialized problems that are unlikely to be reproduced wifli home litter boxes. For example, those treatments directed to cattle barns are dealing with cellulose based wastes, since cattle are herbivores. In contrast home pets like dogs and cats consume a mosdy protein diet and their wastes tend to be far more putrid. Those techniques that claim to digest wastes are unlikely to be a full household cure, since the digestion process itself produces ammonia, which is a source of strong obnoxious odor from wastes. Thus, it appears a household litter that is odor free or at least can delay significant odor formation for a substantial time period is yet to be developed. It would be desirable to have a litter or a treatment for litter that prevents formation of odor causing substances. Digestive schemes alone are unlikely to prevent odor, since digestion produces odor if only for a short time. Further, it would be desirable to have a litter that can prevent formation of obnoxious odor without requiring an added fragrance to mask various odors that ordinarily develop. The addition of a fragrance to litter, for the purpose of covering bad odors, often is not a satisfactory solution since the odor continues to exist in the background of the fragrance. Of course, animal wastes have an immediate odor that a mild fragrance might cover. It is subsequently developed odors, such as ammonia, that tend to be most obnoxious and permeating. These are the odors that are most important to prevent. Similarly, it would be desirable to have a litter or a treatment for litter that prevents formation of odors for at least a full day and preferably longer. Even the most attentive pet owner can be delayed from promptly emptying a used litter box. Ordinarily, die odors from a used litter box become obnoxious quite soon after the use and soon can permeate a house. Therefore, if these odors are substantially eliminated for one or two days, or more, the ambience of the house is greatly improved. Moreover, it would be desirable to combine an odor free litter or treatment for litter with a clumping litter, both to simplify emptying the spent portion of litter from the litter box and to maintain the waste in contact with the treated litter for effective odor prevention. Anotiier desirable goal is to control or suppress odor while using only a small amount of active agent The chemical or biological treatments known in the prior art might involve prohibitive expense. Further, it would be undesirable to add significant quantities of any sort of agent to established litters such that they might change the character of the litter material, resulting in the agent being tracked about the house on the pet's feet To achieve the foregoing and other objects and in accordance with the purpose of the present invention, as embodied and broadly described herein, the product and method of this invention may comprise the following. DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION Against the described background, it is therefore a general object of the invention to provide an improved odor inhibiting animal absorbent or treatment of animal absorbents suited for use in home litter boxes, in which animal wastes are prevented from producing obnoxious odors. A more specific object is to provide an animal absorbent that can delay odor formation for at least one day and preferably longer, after the waste contacts the absorbent Another object is to provide an odor inhibiting animal absorbent that can work in combination with a clumping litter, so that the absorbent and the animal wastes are maintained in operative contact. A further object is to create a deodorized animal absorbent that is safe for use in a litter box, with respect to both the pet and humans in the house. Still another object is to provide a deodorizing treatment for pet litter that requires very little additive or treating agent. A low concentration of additive or treating agent is desirable to make die treatment affordable and prevent the pet from tracking the additive or agent. Additional objects, advantages and novel features of die invention shall be set forth in part in the description that follows, and in part will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon examination of the following or may be learned by the practice of the invention. The object and d e advantages of die invention may be realized and attained by means of the instrumentalities and in combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims. According to the invention, an odor retarding pet litter is formed of an absorbent composition and a urease negative bacterial culture combined with the absorbent composition, in an effective amount to inhibit growth of urease positive bacteria when, in use, the absorbent composition is wetted with animal waste containing urea. According to another aspect of the invention a method of suppressing production of odor in pet litter is achieved by applying to a pet litter an effective amount of a urease negative bacteria. The accompanying drawing, which is incorporated in and forms a part of the specification illustrates the performance of a preferred embodiment of die present invention, and togetiier with the description, serves to explain the principles of the invention. In the drawing: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING Figure 1 is a graph showing ammonia content of spent pet litter over time, comparing litter treated according to this invention with untreated litter. BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION The invention is an odor inhibiting pet litter, a method of treating pet litter materials to achieve odor inhibition, and a litter box containing the treated pet litter material. The products and methods of this application are based upon use of a urease negative organism that delays decomposition of solid and liquid animal wastes, with the result that ammonia is not formed and released widi die typical frequency of such wastes decomposing in nature. Ammonia is believed to be the chief cause of obnoxious odors from liquid animal wastes aging in a litter box. During the period of prevention or delay, the urease negative organism effectively prevents formation of obnoxious odor. Organisms of this type are effective in low concentrations against the volumes of waste typically deposited in a litter box. In addition, such organisms are not harmful to animals or humans. In another aspect die invention is an interactive system of urease negative organisms and buffer means. When die system is subjected to wastes, such as acidic urine, it maintains pH in a range favoring the organism. The buffer means may be the pet litter material, itself, especially when the litter material is a smectite (swelling) clay, such as sodium bentonite. The preferred pH range is basic, especially around pH 7-9. A further aspect of the invention is the interaction of the organism with clumping pet litter materials. Numerous clumping pet litters are known in the art, including some that occur naturally and others that are man-made. A preferred clumping litter is formed of a substantial concentration of sodium bentonite, which is naturally occurring and inherently gels or clumps when wet When used with otiier clays or pet litter materials, the concentration of sodium bentonite must be at least about fifty percent to realize the natural clumping action. Because sodium bentonite is a natural clumping material and also is a suitable buffer, this single material is a preferred choice. Further considerations are that sodium bentonite is plentiful, inexpensive, and already has been used as pet litter for many decades. It can be safely disposed of in compost in the garden, or in the trash. Smectite clays are a group of minerals composed of units made up of two silica tetrahedral sheets with a central alumina octahedral sheet Exchangeable cations are found between the silicate layers. The layers are stacked widi oxygen atoms from each layer being disposed in a common intermediate layer. The bonding between adjacent oxygen atoms in the central layer is weak and results in cleavage between the units. Polar molecules such as water can enter between units and expand die lattice structure. Thus, the smectite clays are swell easily in the presence of water or other polar molecules. Some examples of smectites are the dioctahedral smectites: montmorillonite, beidellite, and nontronite; and the trioctahedral smectites: hectorite and saponite. A number of urease negative organisms are known and are suitable for use in a litter product. Among them are strains selected from group N streptococcus, such as lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, and lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis; group D streptococcus, such as streptococcus faecium; pediococcus such as pediococcus acidilactici, pediococcus cerevisiae, and pediococcus pentosaeceus; propionibacterium such as propionibacterium shermanii and propionibacterium freudenreichii; leuconostoc such as leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris and leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. dextranicum; and lactobaciUus such as lactobaciUus acidophilus and lactobaciUus bulgaricus. Other nonspecific bacillus type organisms of compost and soil origin also are candidates. Urease negative strains belonging to the genus lactococcus, streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobaciUus, and non-specific unidentified baciUus type urease negative organisms of compost and soU origin were propagated in sterile nutrient medium. The cultures were transferred tiirice to activate the ceUular metaboUsm. A sterilized 12% soUds medium was prepared by heating it to 170°F to 190°F, holding for 45 minutes to 1 hour, and cooling to 90°F. The organisms were inoculated into this 12% soUds medium. The amount of inoculum used was one percent. The cultures were incubated and neutra zed at specific intervals to maximize the ceU population. At die end of die growth period, die cultures were cooled to 40° to 50°F. Then aU the liquid cultures were blended and mixed with dry base consisting of vegetable flour, carbohydrates, vegetable gum, and sodium montmoriUonite. After it is mixed, die entire doughy mass is extruded cold and dried at room temperature. Notably, this preparation includes die spent growtii medium and byproducts of growtii, such as bacterial enzymes and other beneficial by-products. The culture preparation thus prepared is mixed witii the smectite clay, such as sodium montmoriUonite, to prepare a pet Utter. An alternative preparation is to apply d e Uquid culture preparation, after growtii stage, by spraying it on the smectite clay or other pet Utter blend, including sweUing smectite clays such as sodium montmoriUonite. In the course of conducting tiiese studies, it was discovered that d e stimulant yucca schidigera extract, had an exceptional stimulatory effect on the urease negative bacteria, especially on propionibacterium species. This result was determined using direct microscopic examination. However, even urease negative bacteria cultures grown in growth medium widiout yucca schidigera extract exhibited odor inhibition in pet Utter. A control medium widiout any bacteria, but witii yucca schidigera extract, even when used at high concentration, could not inhibit odor in pet Utter. Urease negative bacteria grown in the presence of yucca schidigera extract exhibited significantly better abi ty to inhibit odor in pet Utter, as compared to unease negative bacteria grown without tiiis stimulant Possibly die exceptional growth of bacteria in the presence of yucca schidigera extract leads to production of significandy different bacterial by- products. When the relative quantities of other ingredients in the growth media were varied, no siimlar advantage was found. The term "treated Utter" and the like wiU be used throughout to refer to pet Utter of any description to which urease negative organisms have been appUed, unless context indicates otherwise. The term, "untreated Utter" and the like wiU be used throughout to refer to pet Utter of any description to which urease negative organisms have not been appUed, unless context indicates otherwise. The terms, "beneficial organisms," "beneficial culture" or the like, refer to urease negative bacteria or cultures of same, unless context indicates otherwise. The terms, "culture preparation," "bacterial preparation," "bacterial enzyme culture additive" or d e like refer to a urease negative bacteria in combination witii spent growth medium and growth by-products, such as enzymes and, optionaUy depending on context soUdifying and bulking agents, unless context indicates otherwise. EXAMPLE 1 A culture preparation for appUcation to pet Utter is prepared by first formulating a basic nutrient medium. Suitable ingredients include a protein source, such as sweet whey, casein hydrolyzate, and autolyzed yeast extract; a carbohydrate source, such as dextrose; buffers, such as disodium phosphate, monosodium phosphate, and sodium and bicarbonate; stimulants, such as powdered yucca schidigera extract; and water. A 100 lb. mixture of medium is prepared from the foUowing ingredients, expressed as weight percent. TABLE 1 Ingredient Percentage Typical Preferred Range Range Sweet Whey 63.0 50 - 75 60 - 65 Autolyzed Yeast Extract 5.0 2.5 - 7.5 3 - 5 Dextrose 20.0 10 - 30 15 - 25 Disodium Phosphate 1.5 1 - 3 1.25 - 2.75 Monosodium Phosphate 3.0 2 - 5 2.5 - 4.0 Casein Hydrolyzate 5.0 2.5 - 7.5 3 - 5 Powdered Yucca Schidigera Extract 0.50 0.05 - 2.5 0.25 - 0.75 Sodium Bicarbonate 2.0 1 - 5 1.5 - 3 The ingredients are thoroughly blended and may be stored in dry form until ready for use. A Uquid culture is prepared by reconstituting the medium at the rate of 12% soUds by weight in warm water. Next using acid or base neutralizer, pH is adjusted to 6.8 to 7.0. The medium is heated witii constant agitation to 190°F and held at tiiat temperature for 40-45 minutes. Then the medium is cooled to 90°F and inoculated with individual unease negative strains of lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis, pediococcus cerevisiae, pediococcus acidilactici, pediococcus pentosaeceus, streptococcus faecium, propionibacterium shermanU, propionibacterium freudenreichii, leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris, leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. dextranicum, lactobaciUus acidophilus, lactobaciUus bulgaricus, and non specific urease negative compost and soil origin, unidentified mixed flora. The organisms are aUowed to grow until pH drops to 5.8. Then, the cultures are neutraUzed to pH 6.2 using an alkaline neutralizer such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or ammonium hydroxide. The process is continued, often ten to fifteen times, until the pH no longer drops below pH 5.8. At this stage, most of the nutrients are exhausted, and a sufficient population is estabUshed in the medium. The Uve cell count concentration at this stage is approximately 2 to 5 biUion organisms per gram. Next the medium is cooled to 50°F by circulating cold water through cooUng tubes. The fuUy grown Uquid culture is blended in a separate vessel with dried vegetable flours or vegetable flour and bentonite or other suitable dry material to bring it to a doughy consistency, thereby producing a culture preparation. The culture preparation is extruded, dried, and miUed to the consistency of granules or fine, 200 mesh powder. The dried bacterial preparation is blended with smectite clay or other suitable granular absorbent to form a treated pet Utter. The dried bacterial preparation can be supplied as an independent additive, to be mixed with any selected pet Utter, such as by a pet owner or pet Utter suppUer. SimUarly, die bacterial preparation can be mixed witii a suitable absorbent material and suppUed as a treated pet Utter product It is sin-ilarly possible to offer a treated pet Utter in a package that also serves as a Utter box. These organisms have been tested individuaUy and in combinations at the rate of 0.1% to 5% by weight in sodium bentonite. In a preliminary quaUtative test 300 gm samples of treated Utter were prepared. Cat urine, from veterinary supply sources, was added to each sample, and die samples were aUowed to sit at room temperature for a period of three weeks. Equivalent control samples consisted of untreated bentonite. A three member panel evaluated odor of aU aged samples. The result was that the samples treated with urease negative bacteria had less odor than the control samples. Samples using a combination of two species of urease negative bacteria showed stiU lower odor. Samples treated with urease positive bacteria were found to have powerful odor, stronger than die control samples. Based upon tiiis preUminary showing of efficacy, further tests were run to determine field efficacy and acceptance by animals and humans. AU tests were conducted using the culture prepared according to Example 1. EXAMPLE 2 QuaUtative efficacy tests were conducted. A seven to ten day test of animal absorbents, with and widiout the beneficial culture, was run in households having cats. Sample A was ordinary sodium bentonite cat Utter; Sample B was sodium bentonite treated with 1% by weight of a culture preparation of beneficial organisms, as prepared in Example 1. This high level of a preparation of these organisms was used to determine whether high levels would be accepted by cats. Seven households returned bags of cat wastes removed from Utter boxes of each sample. AU cats used bodi samples, showing that Utter containing the culture preparation was accepted. Based on weights of the returned bags of wastes, most of the cats preferred B. TABLE2--CATDROSS COLLECTIONDATA WEIGHT WEIGHT NUMBER OF PREFER SAMPLE A SAMPLE B CATS (lbs.) (lbs.) 3.6 4.0 2 B 0.8 1.1 1 B 2.4 6.0 3 B 1.3 1.5 1 B 0.8 1.3 2 B 3.8 5.1 3 A 3.8 4.0 2 A TOTAL: 18.0 21.5 14 — Further tests were conducted on the urine soaked clumps from the waste collection bags: ODOR TEST: Samples A and B each consisted of a coUection of variously aged specimens, ranging from 0-10 days old. Each coUection was kept in a bucket, and the odor from the bucket was evaluated in gross. The urine clumps of Sample A were pungent, repulsive, and ammomacal. The urine clumps of Sample B had a mUd fermentative, non-repulsive odor. This result shows field efficacy. CLUMPABILπΥ TEST: At the time of coUection, clumps from both Sample A and Sample B were cohesive and non-friable when coUected dady. The aged clumps were different. Clumps from Sample A were cohesive and non-friable; clumps from Sample B were sUghtiy less cohesive and sUghdy more friable. This result shows that a reaction occurred, induced by die beneficial cultures. AMMONIA TEST: The more aged specimens from Samples A and B were evaluated for ammonia content. Clumps weighing 30 grams were placed in petri dishes and 30 ml of hydrogen peroxide solution was added to each. The peroxide solutions from Sample A Utter frothed vigorously. The peroxide solutions from sample B litters did not froth. This suggests that ammonia was present in Sample A clumps but not in Sample B. Either the urea in Sample B was fixed and did not form ammonia, or, if ammonia was formed, it was utiUzed by the beneficial cultures. This test was confirmed by using pure ammoma and pure urea. The ammonia samples frothed in the presence of peroxide, whUe the urea sample did not indicating that it was the ammonia in Sample A that caused frothing. NON-CLUMPING LITTER TEST: A one week test was run, with and without the beneficial organisms, on a commerciaUy available non-clumping Utter to determine the efficacy of the treatment in situations where urine could run through the Utter and pool at d e bottom of the Utter box. Sample C was untreated and Sample D contained 1% by weight of a culture preparation of beneficial organisms. After three cats had used die samples for one week, urine odor from Sample C was notably stronger than that from Sample D. This result indicates that the beneficial organisms are useful with non-clumping Utters. CONCENTRAΗON TEST: Sample E was prepared by mixing ten pounds of sodium bentonite Utter with five pounds of Sample B, producing a 0.33% concentration of a culture preparation of beneficial organisms. The odor of Sample E was substantially reduced as compared to die odor of Sample A. AGING TEST: The ammonia test was performed on botii fresh and aged, treated Utter. a. Fresh: Very fresh urine clumps - less than 8 hours old ~ were taken from three different Utter boxes. Sample A, Sample B, and Sample E. The ammonia test was performed. No foaming was observed in any sample, indicating that urea had not yet converted to ammonia. b. Aged: An ammonia test was run on a one week old clump from the Sample E Utter box. The sample bubbled vigorously indicating tiiat urea had converted to ammonia. This result demonstrates tiiat urea fixation is stable for less than one week. Eventual breakdown is valuable in converting wastes to usable fertiUzer. CONTROL TEST: a. Beneficial Organisms: The ammoma test was run on 100% culture preparation of beneficial organisms. Only an occasional bubble was observed, indicating that die culture preparation alone does not interfere with the foaming/nonfoaming test results, b. Urine: The ammoma test was run on a fresh sample of human urine. No foaming resulted. This indicates tiiat nitrogen is present as urea and later changed to ammonia. FECAL MATTER TEST: The ammoma test was run on fresh, less that 8 hours old fecal matter from Sample A and Sample B Utter boxes. Sample A foamed vigorously witii a brown foam. Sample B had a few tiny bubbles and no foaming. This indicates that the beneficial organisms are retarding the formation of odor causing nitrogenous compounds in cat feces, helping with odor control. It is generaUy known that die primary odor causing component in cat urine is ammonia, formed by the breakdown of the urea in fresh cat urine. The odor in cat feces is from skatole and indole. In order to track the formation, growth, and disappearance of these and other compounds, cat urine and feces from Sample A and Sample B, as weU as the culture, itself, and bodi die treated and untreated sodium bentonite, itself, were tested witii sensitive instruments. It was found tiiat skatole and indole were not detectable by the instruments at the levels found in Utter boxes. Apparently, the concentration of these compounds was too low for analytical detection. Thus, no quantitative tests could be conducted on these compounds. Instrumental analysis is useful within concentration limits measured in parts per million. However, the human nose appears able to detect certain odors in concentrations of parts per bilUon. Qualitative tests, using the human nose, showed that Utter treated with beneficial organisms was effective in reducing odors of skatole and indole. EXAMPLE 3 The foUowing samples were evaluated: Sample A - untreated Na Bentonite Utter. "A" Urine ~ from untreated Sample A one day old. "B" Urine - from treated Sample B one day old. The determination of ammonia by Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Mediod 350.3-1974. Approximately 25 grams of die sample was broken up and placed onto a fritted glass funnel. The sample was placed in a closed system and purged with nitrogen at fifty milUUters per minute for twenty minutes. The gas was purged through 110 ml of sUghtiy acidic deionized water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3 TABLE 3 -- QUANTITATIVE TEST FOR AMMONIA ReUable detection limit for this method is 0.05 mg/L. The EPA Mediod 350.3 analysis indicated a difference in the ammoma concentration observed in the samples. Measurements of ammonia level in the blank Utter and in the urine from the treated Utter were below die reUable detection limit of the instrument, which could introduce inaccuracy in the reported levels of ammoma. Nevertheless, the results indicated a quantitative difference. The untreated urine showed an increasing ammoma concentration in a 25 gram sample. EXAMPLE 4 Blank specimens of both Sample A, untreated blank Utter, and Sample B, treated blank Utter, were evaluated as controls. To determine quantitative performance of the culture, progressively aged urine samples from both batches of Utter were evaluated on a day-to-day aging basis over an elapsed period of two weeks. The freshest samples were less than 8 hours old, having been taken on the day of die test. Further samples were aged each day from two to six days. Two samples from each group were allowed to age eight more days and were tested when tiiey reached 12 and 14 days aging. The determination of ammonia by Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Mediod 350.3-1974. Approximately 40 grams of the sample was broken up and placed onto a fritted glass funnel. The sample was placed in a closed system and purged with nitrogen at fifty milliliters per minute for twenty minutes. The gas was purged dirough 50 ml of sUght acidic Nano-pure water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3. TABLE 4 -- QUANTITATIVE TEST FOR AMMONIA SAMPLE B NH 3 μg/g SAMPLE A NH 3 μg/g TREATED UNTREATED Control 0.01 Control 0.02 Day 1 0.36 Day 1 3.61 Day 2 0.26 Day 2 4.77 Day 3 11.6 Day 3 1.83 Day 4 4.77 Day 4 136.0 Day 5 186.0 Day 5 641.0 Day 6 7.23 Day 6 1,777 Day 12 1,890 Day 12 2,847 Day 14 2,320 Day 14 2,435 The data for die first six days was placed on a graph and a line of best fit was drawn for bodi treated and untreated samples. The graph shows a difference in the ammonia concentration observed in the samples. The treated samples showed a lower ammonia concentration as compared to die untreated samples from day to day. The ammoma concentration shows an increase from day to day in both treated and untreated samples. The data for days 12 and 14 are not graphed. The lower result for the ammoma content of the untreated sample aged 14 days as opposed to die untreated sample aged 12 days may be due to depletion of die urea. These results derived from me graph show that the urease negative organisms delay the formation of ammoma at the level of human olfactory detection, which is about 20 ppm or 20 μg/g, by about two additional days. In an untreated Utter box, tiiis threshold level is reached in two to three days. In the treated Utter box, die direshold level is not reached until almost five days. EXAMPLE 5 It is desirable to determine the effective concentrations of the culture. The culture is more cosdy than typical Utter such as bentonite. Therefore, the cost of adding the culture to untreated Utter might influence die price of Utter in a substantial fashion. Since cat Utter generaUy is an inexpensive, disposable commodity, it would be desirable know the minimum useful level of the culture. Six litter boxes were prepared with ten pounds of granular bentonite and culture preparation. The culture preparation was pulverized in a blender and further crushed witii a mortar and pestle. A postage scale was used to weigh the culture preparation; for smaUer dosages, estimates were done by volume. For example, 0.1% was l/10th the volume of 1%. One box was used as a control (0% culture preparation). The other boxes were dosed with: 2%, 1%, 0.50%, 0.25%, and 0.10% dried culture preparation. Four cats had free access to the six Utter boxes; not aU boxes were used each day. Urine sample clumps were scooped dady and placed in labeUed, unsealed plastic bags. The unsealed bags were placed in a five gaUon bucket So that each bag was exposed to air, the bucket Ud was left ajar. The control samples were kept in a bucket separate from the treated samples to avoid cross contamination of ammoma. The samples were subjected to d e Ammonia Test of Example 1. Bubbling of the peroxide/urine clump sample indicates the presence of ammonia. No bubbling indicated the absence of ammoma. A few tiny bubbles indicated a smaU amount of ammoma. Many bubbles and swelling of the sample with air bubbles indicated a significant amount of ammonia. The results of the Ammonia Test are reported in Table 5 with the following symbols: + = foamed - = no foam. The Odor Test of Example 1 was conducted by sniffing the sample clumps. The results are reported in Table 5 wid odor rated as foUows: - = could not perceive ammoma + = sUght ammonia odor ++ = moderate ammonia odor +++ = strong ammonia odor The culture treated samples had a mUd, yeasty odor. The fragrance of the culture itself could be detected in die samples having the higher dosages. The data shows the culture preparation to be effective in retarding formation of ammonia down to 0.1%, which was the lowest level tested. After five days, aU samples treated with the culture preparation had no ammoma odor. The peroxide test for ammoma, when appUed to the treated samples, showed no response on days one and two and a sUght response or no response on days 3 to 5. It is beUeved that a smectite clay mineral with sodium as the dominant cation associated with the exchange sites of the smectite, is especiaUy suited to serve as a buffer means for pH control in a clumpable pet Utter. Sodium montmoriUonite, also known as sodium bentonite or Wyoming bentonite, is a readdy available and widely accepted example of such a smectite clay. Other suitable buffer systems might employ mixtures of salts and acids of carbonate, phosphate or borate anions. When Uquid is imbibed by me pet Utter to form a clump, the sodium smectite or other buffer means additives wiU create a pH greater than 7 and approximately pH of 9 for optimum effect A solution that contains a weak acid or base plus the salt of that acid or base is known as a buffer. Buffer mixtures regulate the pH of an aqueous solution so that, when acid or base is added to the system, there is only a smaU change in the pH of die system. In the combination of clumping pet Utter and dried urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive, the sodium bentonite provides a desirable buffer property to pet Utter in addition to its clumping property when exposed to acidic pet urine. The buffering effect of sodium smectite clays or inorganic carbonate, phosphate and borate buffer additives maintains a neutral or basic pH in the urine clump. The basic pH of the urine clump provides the appropriate conditions to favor growth of die urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive and to inhibit the growth of urease positive bacteria from the environment. EXAMPLE 6 In order to determine buffering action of pet Utter, three pet Utter materials were evaluated for pH over seven days of use by diree cats. The first product was pure sodium bentonite. The second was commerciaUy available Scoop Away Utter, a product of A&M Products. The composition of Scoop Away is about 50% sodium bentonite and 50% other clays and chemical additives. The third was commerciaUy avaUable Fresh Step Utter, a product of Clorox Corporation. Fresh Step is known to contain attapulgite clay and may contain fuUer's earth, as weU. Each of these three materials was tested in both untreated and treated versions. The treated materials contained 0.5% by weight of die culture preparation. The six samples were tested for pH bodi when die samples were gathered and after the gathered samples were aged over a time period ranging from zero days to six additional days. The pH of a control sample of each material, which was not used by die cats, was measured initiaUy to determine a base reading and was evaluated again after six days aging. TABLE 6 -- pH OF PET LITTER OVER SEVEN DAY PERIOD Treated Treated Treated Sample Day Sodium Sodium Scoop Scoop Fresh Fresh Bentonite Bentonite Away Away Step Step Control - 9 9 7.5 7 8.5 8.5 fresh Control - 9 9 7.5 7 8.5 8.5 6 days Day 0 - fresh 8 8.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 Day 0 - aged 8 8.5 7.5 8 8.5 8.5 Day 1 - fresh 8 8.5 7 7.5 9 8.5 Day 1 - aged 7.5 8.5 7 8 8 8.5 Day 2 - fresh 8 8.5 8 9 8.5 Day 2 - aged 8 8.5 8.5 8 8.5 Day 3 - fresh 9 7 7.5 8 Day 3 - aged 8 7 7 8 Day 4 - fresh 8.5 7 7.5 Day 4 - aged 8.5 7 7 Day 5 - fresh 8.5 8.5 8 Day 5 - aged 8 7.5 8 Day 6 - fresh 8 Day 6 - aged 8 On days showing a blank, the particular sample was not used. The test results show that sodium bentonite was the most alkaUne control material, with pH 9. Fresh exposure to cat urine caused a drop in the pH of untreated sodium bentonite to either pH 8 or pH 8.5. With age, the samples showed very little change. In two cases the sample pH dropped sUghtiy. Buffering appeared to be effective and die pH stabiUzed in the range from 7-9. The treated sample of sodium bentonite showed relatively less pH drop and remained relatively more stable, indicating a better buffering action. Untreated Scoop Away had a lower control pH of 7.5. Fresh exposure to cat urine caused mixed results, with some samples showing a pH drop and another showing a rise. Sample aging had substantially no effect on pH, except that the sample with initial higher pH rose a bit with age. Treated Scoop Away started with a stiU lower control pH of 7. It showed bod increases and decreases in pH with both fresh and aged exposure to cat urine. Buffering appeared to be effective and pH remained in the range from 7-9 in aU samples. Both treated and untreated control samples of Fresh Step had an intermediate control pH of 8.5. With fresh exposure to cat urine, both samples of Fresh Step had a stable pH that changed only sUghtiy, if at aU, from the control value. AU samples of aU three pet Utters maintained pH in the range from 7-9 throughout the tests, which established that die buffering action of the smectite clay is sufficient to maintain the pet Utter in the desired pH range at least through the effective period of the culture. The preferential growth of urease negative bacteria inhibits the bacterial conversion of urea to ammonia by urease positive bacteria from the environment Ammoma is the major odor component of die urine clump. If the pH of the urine clump becomes acidic, urease positive bacteria can grow and wiU generate ammonia from urea with a consequent odor. The buffer and urease negative bacteria culture stabilizes the urea for approximately three extra days, to a total of about five days, until urease positive bacteria eventuaUy invade the urine clump and begin generation of ammonia and odor. EXAMPLE 7 An improved culture and preparation mediod were devised in order to increase the fineness of the culture preparation and to eliminate grinding of the culture preparation. According to d e procedures of Example 1, die urease negative cultures were grown in Uquid medium, reconstituted from dry form at 12.0% soUds level and heat treated at 180°F by holding for 45 minutes. Then the medium was cooled to 90°F and was incubated with previously transferred urease negative cultures. The medium was incubated until pH dropped to 5.2. At tiiis stage, it was neutraUzed to pH 7.0 and die culture was aUowed to incubate further. The neutra zation steps were continued until pH no longer dropped, indicating d e depletion of nutrients. At this stage 10 pounds of sterile mixed 25% dextrose and 10% autolyzed yeast extract solution was added for every 1000 pounds of Uquid medium, and die incubation was further continued until pH dropped towards 5.0. This last step was introduced to further enhance ceU growth. Then, the culture was cooled to 60°F and neutralized to pH 7.0 using a 50% solution of sodium hydroxide. The culture thus prepared was added to granular siUca at the preferred rate of 25% weight/weight with a range from 10 to 50%. The culture, added to siUca, was dried at ambient temperature. After the culture was dried, powdered carbonate salts, for example sodium bicarbonate, were added to the dried siUca and culture at the preferred rate of 20% by weight, witii a range from 10 to 40%. The culture plus carbonate mix was uniformly blended and was used to inoculate bentonite at the rate of 0.1 to 0.25% by weight, for use as animal Utter. The improved culture preparation of tfiis example, prepared according to this new method, does not require grinding and worked efficiently. The foUowing table evaluates the performance of this improved culture preparation in comparison to the original culture preparation of Example 1. The improved culture preparation is referred to in die table as "new culture preparation." Tests were run using Dr. Elsey's brand scoopable Utter, a 6 x 20 mesh sodium bentonite from Black Hills Bentonite. Dosage was 0.2 percent or one level tablespoon (0.6 ounces) in 18 pounds of Utter. After seven days, bod the control and die original formulation had a strong ammonia odor and foamed vigorously in the quaUtative ammonia test of Example 2. The improved culture had a mUd, yeasty smeU and no foam. TABLE 7 - ORIGINAL VERSUS NEW CULTURE PREPARATION AMMONIA AND ODOR TEST RESULTS Blank indicates sample box was not used on that day. - = no ammonia/odor + = sUght ammonia/odor ++ = moderate ammonia/odor = strong ammonia/odor The foregoing is considered as iUustrative only of the principles of the invention. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readUy occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact formulation and operation described, and accordingly aU suitable modifications and equivalents may be regarded as falling within the scope of the invention as defined by the claims that foUow.

Claims: CLAIMS I. A method of suppressing production of odor from animal wastes in pet Utter, comprising: applying to a pet Utter an effective amount of a urease negative bacteria. 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the pet Utter comprises a smectite clay. 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein the smectite clay comprises a sodium smectite clay. 4. The method of Claim 3, wherein the sodium smectite clay comprises bentonite. 5. The method of Claim 4, wherein the bentonite comprises granular sodium bentonite. 6. The method of Claim 1, wherein before applying said urease negative bacteria to pet Utter, the urease negative bacteria are mixed with granular siUca. 7. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is applied in a culture preparation containing bacterial growth medium and bacterial growth by¬ products. 8. The method of Claim 7, wherein said growth medium comprises a protein source, a carbohydrate source, a buffer, and a stimulant 9. The method of Claim 8, wherein said protein source is selected from the group consisting of sweet whey, casein hydrolyzate, and autolyzed yeast extract or mixtures thereof. 10. The method of Claim 8, wherein said carbohydrate source comprises dextrose. II. The method of Claim 8, wherein said buffer is selected from the group consisting of disodium phosphate, monosodium phosphate, and sodium bicarbonate or mixtures thereof. 12. The method of Claim 8, wherein said stimulant comprises yucca schidigera extract 13. The method of Claim 12, wherein said yucca schidigera extract comprises from about 0.25 to about 0.75 weight percent of said bacterial growth medium. 14. The method of Claim 12, wherein said yucca schidigera extract comprises from about 0.05 to about 0.2.5 weight percent of said bacterial growth medium. 15. The method of Claim 7, wherein said preparation is appUed in dry form. 16. The method of Claim 7, wherein before applying said preparation, die preparation is mixed with granular silica. 17. The method of Claim 16, wherein said preparation comprises from about 10 to 50 weight percent of said granular silica. 18. The method of Claim 16, further comprising, before applying the preparation, adding a carbonate salt to said mixture of preparation and siUca. 19. The method of Claim 18, wherein said carbonate salt comprises sodium bicarbonate. 20. The method of Claim 16, wherein the bicarbonate salt comprises from about 10 to 40 weight percent of said mixture of preparation and sUica. 21. The method of Claim 7, wherein said preparation is appUed by spraying in a Uquid based form. 22. The method of Claim 7, further comprising: creating a buffer system favoring growth of urease negative bacteria by mixing said culture preparation with a buffer means for maintaining a basic pH when contacted with acidic urine. 23. The method of Claim 22, wherein said buffer means comprises a swelling sodium smectite clay mineral. 24. The mediod of Claim 23, wherein said sodium smectite clay mineral comprises sodium bentonite. 25. The method of Claim 23, wherein said sodium smectite clay mineral is of the type that forms a gel when wetted. 26. The method of Claim 23, wherein said sodium smectite clay mineral comprises at least approximately one-half the composition of the pet Utter, by weight. 27. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selected from urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobaciUus, and non¬ specific baciUus or mixtures thereof. 28. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises group N streptococcus bacteria selected from the group consisting of lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis, and mixtures thereof. 29. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises group D streptococcus bacteria comprising streptococcus faecium. 30. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises pediococcus bacteria selected from die group consisting of pediococcus acidilactici, pediococcus pentosaeceus, pediococcus cerevisiae, and mixtures thereof. 31. The method of Claim 27 , wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises propionibacterium selected from the group consisting of propionibacterium shermanU, propionibacterium freudenreichu, and mixtures thereof. 32. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises leuconostoc bacteria selected from the group consisting of leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris, leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. dextranicum, and mixtures thereof. 33. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises lactobaciUus bacteria selected from die group consisting of lactobaciUus acidophilus, lactobaciUus bulgaricus, and mixtures thereof. 34. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific baciUus bacteria of compost and soU origin. 35. The mediod of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacterial culture preparation is applied in an amount in the approximate range from 0.1% to 5.0% by dry weight of the pet Utter. 36. The memod of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selected from urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobaciUus, and non¬ specific baciUus or mixtures thereof. 37. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises group N streptococcus bacteria selected from die group consisting of lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis, and mixtures thereof. 38. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises group D streptococcus bacteria comprising streptococcus faecium. 39. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises pediococcus bacteria selected from the group consisting of pediococcus acidUactici, pediococcus pentosaeceus, pediococcus cerevisiae, and mixtures thereof. 40. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises propionibacterium selected from the group consisting of propionibacterium shermanU, propionibacterium freudenreichu, and mixtures thereof. 41. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises leuconostoc bacteria selected from the group consisting of leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris, leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. dextranicum, and mixtures thereof. 42. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises lactobacUlus bacteria selected from e group consisting of lactobaciUus acidophUus, lactobacUlus bulgaricus, and mixtures tiiereof. 43. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific baciUus bacteria of compost and soU origin. 44. An odor retarding pet Utter, comprising: an absorbent composition; and a decomposition retarding urease negative bacteria combined witii said absorbent composition in an effective amount to inhibit growth of urease positive bacteria when, in use, the absorbent composition is contacted with animal waste. 45. The pet Utter of Claim 44, further comprising growth medium of culturing said urease negative bacteria. 46. The pet Utter of Claim 45, further comprising growth by-products of culturing said urease negative bacteria. 47. The pet Utter of Claim 45, further comprising granular siUca carrying said urease negative bacteria. 48. The pet Utter of Claim 45, further comprising buffer means for maintaining pH in the neutral or basic range when, in use, said absorbent composition is contacted by acidic animal waste. 49. The pet Utter of Claim 48, wherein said buffer means comprises a sodium smectite clay. 50. The pet Utter of Claim 48, wherein said buffer means is selected from the group consisting of mixtures of salts and acids of carbonate, phosphate or borate anions. 51. The pet Utter of Claim 45 , wherein said absorbent composition comprises a smectite clay. 52. The pet Utter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprises a swelling sodium smectite clay. 53. The pet Utter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprises bentonite. 54. The pet Utter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprises granular sodium bentonite. 55. The pet Utter of Claim 45, wherein said growtii medium and urease negative bacteria are dried, and further comprising granular siUca carrying said dried growth medium and urease negative bacteria. 56. The pet Utter of Claim 55, further comprising a carbonate salt 57. The pet Utter of Claim 56, wherein said carbonate salt comprises from 10 to 40 weight percent of said siUca, growth medium, and urease negative bacteria. 58. The pet Utter of claim 44, wherein: said urease negative bacteria is present in a culture preparation containing growth medium and growth by-products of culturing the bacteria; and said culture preparation is present in an amount in the approximate range of 0.1% to 5.0% by weight of said absorbent composition. 59. The pet Utter of claim 58, wherein said culture preparation is present in an amount in the approximate range of 0.1% to 1.0% by weight of said absorbent composition.

Inventors: REDDY MALIREDDY S, SLOAN ELAINE, REDDY, MALIREDDY, S., SLOAN, ELAINE
Applicants: BENTONITE CORP, REDDY MALIREDDY S, SLOAN ELAINE, BENTONITE CORPORATION, REDDY, MALIREDDY, S., SLOAN, ELAINE
Application year: 1995
Main classification: A01K67
IPC codes: A01K1