CA2203009A1 - Odor inhibiting pet litter - Google Patents
Odor inhibiting pet litterInfo
- Publication number
- CA2203009A1 CA2203009A1 CA 2203009 CA2203009A CA2203009A1 CA 2203009 A1 CA2203009 A1 CA 2203009A1 CA 2203009 CA2203009 CA 2203009 CA 2203009 A CA2203009 A CA 2203009A CA 2203009 A1 CA2203009 A1 CA 2203009A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- negative bacteria
- urease negative
- litter
- group
- pet litter
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Landscapes
- Housing For Livestock And Birds (AREA)
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
wo 96/11570 Pcr/uss5/l3004 ODOR INHIBITING PET LITTER
TECHNICAL FIELD
The invention generally relates to animal hllsb~ndry, especially to m~teri~l for15absorbing moisture from waste products. The invention di~c]ose,s a clay based pet litter in which a b~cteri~l elpmp~nt is mixed with certain types of clay to inhibit formation of ammonia from urea for a period of several days.
BACKGROUND ART
20House.hold 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 m~teri~l for producing pet litter is clay, which is ~-e~ ellsive, absorbs 25liquids, and is easily disposed of, such as in the garden, or in the trash. Many clays are used as pet litters because of their e~cellPnt absorptive qu~lities. Among them, attapulgite clay, which is hydrous m~gn~ium ~h....i"l.." .cilic~te, is one of the most commonly used pet litters. Simil~rly, fuller's earth is a combin~tion of attapulgite clay and bento~,i~, clay.
30Bentonite, which is a montmorillonite clay, is formed of hydrous m~gnPsillm ~h.i";..~.." silicate and is widely used as pet litter. Its two common forms, sodium bPntonitç. and c~lcillm bentonite, are distinguished by having either sodium or calcium cations. ~1cil1m bçnt~nit~, also known as southern bentonite, is an acid activatable clay that can be treated with hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid to ~ignifi(~nt1y increase its surface area and enhance it absorptive plopellies. It is the better absorbent of the S two. Sodium be.,~o~ has the ability to swell several times and forms gel-like masses in water, while calcium bel-~onil~ swells much less. Sodium bP.ntonite also is known as Wyoming or weslelll b~ n;lP
Two other common pet litters are kaolin, or china clay, and se~iment~ry opal clay ~ es. Kaolin is a hydrous ~ll1minllm silicate of the ~o1initP mineral group, l0having the formula Al2O32SiO22H2O. A commercial opal clay mixture contains se~iment~ry opal. Opal clay contains about 20 percent more silicon dioxide than is found in benlol-;lP 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 15m~tçri~1 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 procçssing, different clays and other ingredients can be b1en~ed to produce a pet litter having special qu:~lities, such as clumpability or odor control. After b1çn~ing, the product granules are sorted 20by screening into various siæs. The final pet litter can be a l"ib~ of sizes, which is more absorbent than when all granules are the same size.
The usefulness and pçrform~nce of ordinhl~y 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 25the spent litter and waste products from the unspent litter. Second, several e, ;ll~çnters have added chPmi~1 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 m~t~ 1c have been developed that areespecially absorbent. Several patents have issued in each of these areas.
30The first type of patents disclose several tech~iques for clumping litter particles when wetted. For example, U.S. Patent 5,216,980 to Kiebke combinPs gr~n~ r clay with a gluten co~ -g 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 gr~n~ r litter with grain flour to cause ~lomP.r~tion and minPr~l oil to cause the flour to adhere to the grains.
U.S. Patent 5,094,189 to Aylen et al adds potato starch to bel-lo~ clay. U.S. Patent 5,000,115 to ~ghes mPntion~ that certain natural bçntonite clays, alone, are c~r~blP
of cl--mpin~ 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-clnmring litter. Rec~ e only wet litter forms clumps, the spent litter and the waste cont~inP.d by it can be comrletely removed from the litter box, while permitting unused litter to remain behind. Thus, clumping litter is efficiPnt 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 cle~ning job much more ple~nt and raises the expect~tion that this job will be done more frequently. Consequently, it is expected that clumping litter results in decreased waste odor in the home, due to the frequent and complete cl~.~nings.
The second type of patents add a chPmic~l 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 m~teri~l to deodorize the litter. ZnO can be added as a bact~rici~le U.S. Patent4,607,594 to Thacker combinPs bçl-lol-;le with perlite, which has been treated with carbonate, bicarbonate or hydrogen phosph~te U.S. Patent 4,517,919 to Benjamin et al adds undecylenic acid, a f~m~icille, to ~e.~ ilr or other base m~te~l U.S. Patent 4,494,481 to Rodriguez et al uses transition metal salts in ~e litter box to control urine odor. U.S. Patent 4,459,368 to Jaffee et al mixes c~lc;llm be.nto~itP with calcium sulfate dihydrate to control odor. U.S. Patent 4,437,429 to Gol~s~in et al uses æolites to control odor in be,ntonite U.S. Patent 3,941,090 to Fry adds cedar bound withalfalfa. U.S. Patent 3,916,831 to Fisher uses popcorn as litter, wi~ added bactericides.
U.S. Patent 3,892,846 to Wortham uses Al, Zn, Sn, Ca or Mg salt of an hydroxamic WO 96/11~70 PCT/US9S/13004 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 bçntonitP. and aLfaLfa, which supplies chlorophyll. U.S. Patent 3,636,927 to Baum adds c~mph~n~compounds, which smell like cedar oil. U.S. Patent 4,844,010 to Duch~rme et al uses cyclodextrin in clay to absorb nitrogenous compounds. U.S. Patent 4,704,989 to RosPnfel~l adds absorptive rn~tP.ri~l~ to clay litter, deodori7~r~ and bactericides. U.S.
Patent 4,671,208 to Smith adds limestollP to litter to neutrali_e 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 in~r)lublP. chemical deodorant, which may be an organic acid and its salt. Japan 3020-100 discl()ses use of bçl~lc/~ P, zeolite, or cristobalite plus deodori7Pr 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 ofacidophilic O~ llS such as lactobacilli, increasing lactic acid content. EPO
Publication 39,522 m~mlf~ctures litter from cellulosic fibers, ppllpti7pd~ with added fungicides and bactericides.
These chemic~l agents may achieve success, although it appears that some could be expensive and others might require large concentrations to effectively treat any signific~nt volume of animal wastes. Some of the chPmi~ls might cause environment~l 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 m~tPri~l~ appears to be a poor choice. In addition, pets walk through the litter box. Thus, these chernicals will be in contact with the pet's feet for s~lbst~nti~l periods of time, which might cause irritation or other health problems. As pets groom themselves, the chemic~lC may in ingested.
Further, the pet may track these chPmir~ls through all areas of the house, spreading potential problems to human inhabitants, as well.
A few patents have aLlelLpLed to use biologic agents to reduce odors. For e7~mplP, U.S. Patent 5,154,594 to Gamlen combines clay with digèstive bacteria to break down the waste. Japan Patent 2154-629 combines multiple types of bacteria on a sawdust growth mPflillm 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 combin~tion of sawdust and thermophilic bacteria on the floor of a cattle shed to control odor. The ~ Lu~ is placed in a compost shed for several weeks to produce mature compost. Soviet Union 1,091,889 discloses ananimal bedding made of composted manure. Thermophilic bacteria in the manure cause an increased temp~ that kills disease microorg~nicms. After composting, the manure is reused as beddin~ Denmark Patent 86,908 combinPs cellulose and coccidillm-lk~d..lg agent plus a protein rich m~ri~l These biologic agent patents seem unlikely to be completely successful, since composting or digesting wastes produces odors.
The third 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 bPntonite, which is known to form a gel when wetted. The content of United States Patent No. 4,591,581 to G~.,ploll is similar. L~pro~ g absorbency would be exrectPd to make a litter more efficient, since liquid wastes might be captured in the granular m~te~i~l Mther than being allowed to pool at the bottom of the litter box.
These many approaches to ilJlploved h~ndling of animal wastes demonstrate that controlling odor of animal wastes is long st~n-lin~ problem. Some of the approaches deal with specialized problems that are unlikely to be reproduced with home litter boxes. For example, those treatment.~ directed to cattle barns are dealing with cellulose based wastes, since cattle are he.livol~s. Ln contrast, home pets like dogs and cats consume a mos~Lly 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 hou~ehold litter that is odor free or at least can delay ~signific~nt odor formation for a substantial tirne period is yet to be developed.
It would be decir~blP to have a litter or a tre~tmPnt for litter that prevents form~tion of odor causing subsl~n~çs 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 5 obnoxious odor without requiring an added fragrance to mask various odors thatordinarily develop. The ~tl(lition of a fragrance to litter, for the purpose of covering bad odors, often is not a s~ticf~ctory solution since the odor contimles to exist in the background of the fragrance. Of course, animal wastes have an immP~i~tç odor that a mild fragrance might cover. It is subsequently developed odors, such as ammonia, 10 that tend to be most obnoxious and permeating These are the odors that are most important to prevent.
~ imil~rly, it would be de~cir~hlp to have a litter or a tre~tment for litter that prevents form~tion of odors for at least a full day and preferably longer. Even the most attentive pet owner can be delayed from promptly ell~pLyillg a used litter box.
15 Ordinarily, the odors from a used litter box become obnoxious quite soon after the use and soon can perme~tp~ a house. Therefore, if these odors are substantially elimin~ted for one or two days, or more, the ~mbiçnce of the house is greatly improved.
Moreover, it would be desirable to combine an odor free litter or treatment for litter with a clllmping litter, both to simplify emptying the spent portion of litter from 20 the litter box and to m~int~in the waste in contact with the treated litter for effective odor prevention.
Another dçsir~hlç goal is to control or suppress odor while using only a small amount of active agent. The chP.mic~l or biological tre~tment.c known in the prior art might involve prohibitive expense. Further, it would be undesirable to add significant
TECHNICAL FIELD
The invention generally relates to animal hllsb~ndry, especially to m~teri~l for15absorbing moisture from waste products. The invention di~c]ose,s a clay based pet litter in which a b~cteri~l elpmp~nt is mixed with certain types of clay to inhibit formation of ammonia from urea for a period of several days.
BACKGROUND ART
20House.hold 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 m~teri~l for producing pet litter is clay, which is ~-e~ ellsive, absorbs 25liquids, and is easily disposed of, such as in the garden, or in the trash. Many clays are used as pet litters because of their e~cellPnt absorptive qu~lities. Among them, attapulgite clay, which is hydrous m~gn~ium ~h....i"l.." .cilic~te, is one of the most commonly used pet litters. Simil~rly, fuller's earth is a combin~tion of attapulgite clay and bento~,i~, clay.
30Bentonite, which is a montmorillonite clay, is formed of hydrous m~gnPsillm ~h.i";..~.." silicate and is widely used as pet litter. Its two common forms, sodium bPntonitç. and c~lcillm bentonite, are distinguished by having either sodium or calcium cations. ~1cil1m bçnt~nit~, also known as southern bentonite, is an acid activatable clay that can be treated with hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid to ~ignifi(~nt1y increase its surface area and enhance it absorptive plopellies. It is the better absorbent of the S two. Sodium be.,~o~ has the ability to swell several times and forms gel-like masses in water, while calcium bel-~onil~ swells much less. Sodium bP.ntonite also is known as Wyoming or weslelll b~ n;lP
Two other common pet litters are kaolin, or china clay, and se~iment~ry opal clay ~ es. Kaolin is a hydrous ~ll1minllm silicate of the ~o1initP mineral group, l0having the formula Al2O32SiO22H2O. A commercial opal clay mixture contains se~iment~ry opal. Opal clay contains about 20 percent more silicon dioxide than is found in benlol-;lP 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 15m~tçri~1 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 procçssing, different clays and other ingredients can be b1en~ed to produce a pet litter having special qu:~lities, such as clumpability or odor control. After b1çn~ing, the product granules are sorted 20by screening into various siæs. The final pet litter can be a l"ib~ of sizes, which is more absorbent than when all granules are the same size.
The usefulness and pçrform~nce of ordinhl~y 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 25the spent litter and waste products from the unspent litter. Second, several e, ;ll~çnters have added chPmi~1 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 m~t~ 1c have been developed that areespecially absorbent. Several patents have issued in each of these areas.
30The first type of patents disclose several tech~iques for clumping litter particles when wetted. For example, U.S. Patent 5,216,980 to Kiebke combinPs gr~n~ r clay with a gluten co~ -g 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 gr~n~ r litter with grain flour to cause ~lomP.r~tion and minPr~l oil to cause the flour to adhere to the grains.
U.S. Patent 5,094,189 to Aylen et al adds potato starch to bel-lo~ clay. U.S. Patent 5,000,115 to ~ghes mPntion~ that certain natural bçntonite clays, alone, are c~r~blP
of cl--mpin~ 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-clnmring litter. Rec~ e only wet litter forms clumps, the spent litter and the waste cont~inP.d by it can be comrletely removed from the litter box, while permitting unused litter to remain behind. Thus, clumping litter is efficiPnt 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 cle~ning job much more ple~nt and raises the expect~tion that this job will be done more frequently. Consequently, it is expected that clumping litter results in decreased waste odor in the home, due to the frequent and complete cl~.~nings.
The second type of patents add a chPmic~l 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 m~teri~l to deodorize the litter. ZnO can be added as a bact~rici~le U.S. Patent4,607,594 to Thacker combinPs bçl-lol-;le with perlite, which has been treated with carbonate, bicarbonate or hydrogen phosph~te U.S. Patent 4,517,919 to Benjamin et al adds undecylenic acid, a f~m~icille, to ~e.~ ilr or other base m~te~l U.S. Patent 4,494,481 to Rodriguez et al uses transition metal salts in ~e litter box to control urine odor. U.S. Patent 4,459,368 to Jaffee et al mixes c~lc;llm be.nto~itP with calcium sulfate dihydrate to control odor. U.S. Patent 4,437,429 to Gol~s~in et al uses æolites to control odor in be,ntonite U.S. Patent 3,941,090 to Fry adds cedar bound withalfalfa. U.S. Patent 3,916,831 to Fisher uses popcorn as litter, wi~ added bactericides.
U.S. Patent 3,892,846 to Wortham uses Al, Zn, Sn, Ca or Mg salt of an hydroxamic WO 96/11~70 PCT/US9S/13004 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 bçntonitP. and aLfaLfa, which supplies chlorophyll. U.S. Patent 3,636,927 to Baum adds c~mph~n~compounds, which smell like cedar oil. U.S. Patent 4,844,010 to Duch~rme et al uses cyclodextrin in clay to absorb nitrogenous compounds. U.S. Patent 4,704,989 to RosPnfel~l adds absorptive rn~tP.ri~l~ to clay litter, deodori7~r~ and bactericides. U.S.
Patent 4,671,208 to Smith adds limestollP to litter to neutrali_e 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 in~r)lublP. chemical deodorant, which may be an organic acid and its salt. Japan 3020-100 discl()ses use of bçl~lc/~ P, zeolite, or cristobalite plus deodori7Pr 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 ofacidophilic O~ llS such as lactobacilli, increasing lactic acid content. EPO
Publication 39,522 m~mlf~ctures litter from cellulosic fibers, ppllpti7pd~ with added fungicides and bactericides.
These chemic~l agents may achieve success, although it appears that some could be expensive and others might require large concentrations to effectively treat any signific~nt volume of animal wastes. Some of the chPmi~ls might cause environment~l 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 m~tPri~l~ appears to be a poor choice. In addition, pets walk through the litter box. Thus, these chernicals will be in contact with the pet's feet for s~lbst~nti~l periods of time, which might cause irritation or other health problems. As pets groom themselves, the chemic~lC may in ingested.
Further, the pet may track these chPmir~ls through all areas of the house, spreading potential problems to human inhabitants, as well.
A few patents have aLlelLpLed to use biologic agents to reduce odors. For e7~mplP, U.S. Patent 5,154,594 to Gamlen combines clay with digèstive bacteria to break down the waste. Japan Patent 2154-629 combines multiple types of bacteria on a sawdust growth mPflillm 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 combin~tion of sawdust and thermophilic bacteria on the floor of a cattle shed to control odor. The ~ Lu~ is placed in a compost shed for several weeks to produce mature compost. Soviet Union 1,091,889 discloses ananimal bedding made of composted manure. Thermophilic bacteria in the manure cause an increased temp~ that kills disease microorg~nicms. After composting, the manure is reused as beddin~ Denmark Patent 86,908 combinPs cellulose and coccidillm-lk~d..lg agent plus a protein rich m~ri~l These biologic agent patents seem unlikely to be completely successful, since composting or digesting wastes produces odors.
The third 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 bPntonite, which is known to form a gel when wetted. The content of United States Patent No. 4,591,581 to G~.,ploll is similar. L~pro~ g absorbency would be exrectPd to make a litter more efficient, since liquid wastes might be captured in the granular m~te~i~l Mther than being allowed to pool at the bottom of the litter box.
These many approaches to ilJlploved h~ndling of animal wastes demonstrate that controlling odor of animal wastes is long st~n-lin~ problem. Some of the approaches deal with specialized problems that are unlikely to be reproduced with home litter boxes. For example, those treatment.~ directed to cattle barns are dealing with cellulose based wastes, since cattle are he.livol~s. Ln contrast, home pets like dogs and cats consume a mos~Lly 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 hou~ehold litter that is odor free or at least can delay ~signific~nt odor formation for a substantial tirne period is yet to be developed.
It would be decir~blP to have a litter or a tre~tmPnt for litter that prevents form~tion of odor causing subsl~n~çs 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 5 obnoxious odor without requiring an added fragrance to mask various odors thatordinarily develop. The ~tl(lition of a fragrance to litter, for the purpose of covering bad odors, often is not a s~ticf~ctory solution since the odor contimles to exist in the background of the fragrance. Of course, animal wastes have an immP~i~tç odor that a mild fragrance might cover. It is subsequently developed odors, such as ammonia, 10 that tend to be most obnoxious and permeating These are the odors that are most important to prevent.
~ imil~rly, it would be de~cir~hlp to have a litter or a tre~tment for litter that prevents form~tion of odors for at least a full day and preferably longer. Even the most attentive pet owner can be delayed from promptly ell~pLyillg a used litter box.
15 Ordinarily, the odors from a used litter box become obnoxious quite soon after the use and soon can perme~tp~ a house. Therefore, if these odors are substantially elimin~ted for one or two days, or more, the ~mbiçnce of the house is greatly improved.
Moreover, it would be desirable to combine an odor free litter or treatment for litter with a clllmping litter, both to simplify emptying the spent portion of litter from 20 the litter box and to m~int~in the waste in contact with the treated litter for effective odor prevention.
Another dçsir~hlç goal is to control or suppress odor while using only a small amount of active agent. The chP.mic~l or biological tre~tment.c known in the prior art might involve prohibitive expense. Further, it would be undesirable to add significant
2~ qll~ntitiPs of any sort of agent to est~hli.chP.d 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 30 method of this invention may comprise the following.
DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION
Against the descrihed background, it is therefore a general object of the invention to provide an improved odor inhibiting animal absorbent or tre~ttnto.nt of animal absorbents suited for use in home litter boxes, in which animal wastes are 5 p~Gvellled from producing obnoxious odors.
A more specific object is to provide an animal absoll,Gll~ that can delay odor form~tion for at least one day.and preferably longer, after the waste contacts the absorben~
Another object is to provide an odor inhihiting animal absorbent that can work 10 in cnmhin~tion with a clllmring litter, so that the absorbent and the animal wastes are m~int~ined in operative contact.
A further object is to create a deodorized animal absorbent that is safe for usein a litter box, with respect to both the pet and hnm~n~ in the house.
Still another object is to provide a deodori7ing tre~tmçnt for pet litter that 15 requires very little additive or treating agent. A low concentration of additive or treating agent is desirable to make the tre~tm~nt affordable and prevent the pet from tracking the additive or agent.
ition~l objects, advantages and novel features of the invention shall be set forth in part in the description that follows, and in part will become app~clll to those 20 skilled in the art upon çx~min~tion of the following or may be learned by the practice of the invention. The object and the advantages of the invention may be realiæd and ~tt~ined by means of the instrllm~nt~litif~s and in comhin~ti-)n~ particularly pointed out in the appended claims.
According to the invention, an odor lGl~dillg pet litter is formed of an absorbent 25 composition and a urease negative bacterial culture combined with the absorbent composition, in an effective amount to inhibit growth of urease positive b~cteri~ when, in use, the absorbent composition is wetted with animal waste conl~ g 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 30 urease negative b~rter~
The accompanying drawing, which is incorporated in and forms a part of the specification illu~ ~s the performance of a preferred embodiment of the present invention, and together with the description, serves to explain the principles of the invention. In the drawing:
BRIEF DESCRIPIION OF THE DRAVVING
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 inhihiting pet litter, a method of treating pet litter m~tPri~lc to achieve odor inhibition, and a litter box col-s~h-;,~g the treated pet litter m~t~ri~l 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 15 result that ammonia is not formed and released with the 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 plcve~ formation of obnoxious odor.
Org~nicm.~ of this type are effective in low concentrations against the volumes of waste 20 typically deposited in a litter box. In ~d~litiQn~ such org~ni~mc are not harmful to ~nim~lc or hnm~n~
In another aspect, the invention is an intPr~ctive system of urease negative org~ni~m~ and buffer means. When the system is subjected to wastes, such as acidic urine, it m~int~in~ pH in a range favoring the organism. The buffer means may be the 25 pet litter m~teri~l, itself, especially when the litter m~teri~l 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 m~teri~l~ Numerous clumping pet litters are known in the art, including some that occur naturally and others that are man-made. A preferred 30 clumping litter is formed of a substantial concentration of sodium bel~to~ P, which is naturally occurring and inherently gels or clumps when wet. When used with other clays or pet litter m~tP.ri~ls, the concçntration of sodium bentc)nit~P. must be at least about fifty percent to realize the natural clnmping action. Because sodium bentQnitP is a natural cl~lmping m~tPri~l and also is a s-lit~blP buffer, this single m~tPri~l is a preferred choice. Further considerations are that sodium ~ ton;lr iS plentiful, in~pe~cive~ and 5 already has been used as pet litter for many dec~(1Pc 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 ~ min~ oct~hpflral sheet. F~ch~nge~hlp cations are found belween the silicate layers. The layers are stacked with oxygen atoms from each 10 layer being disposed in a common int~rme~i~te 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 the lattice structure.
Thus, the .smectite clays are swell easily in the presence of water or other polar moleclllP.s. Some examples of smecliles are the dioctahedral smectites:
15 montmorillonit~, bei~P,llitP, and non~l~nile; and the trioct~hedr~l smectites: hectorite and saponite.
A number of urease negative org~nicmC 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.
20 lactis bio var diacetylactis; group D streptococcus, such as streptococcus faecium;
pediococcus such as pediococcus aci(~ ctici~ pediococcus cerevisiae, and pediococcus pPntos~pceus; propionih~ctprium such as propionih~cterium .chP.rrn~nii and propionibacterium freudenreichii; leuconostoc such as leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp.
cremoris and leuconostoc me,c~ eroides ssp. dextranicum; and lactobacillus such as 25 lactobacillus acidophilus and lactobacillus bulga~cus. Other nonspecific bacillus type orE~nicmc of compost and soil origin also are c~n~id~tP.c Urease negative strains belonging to the genus lactococcus, streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus, and non-specific unidPntifiPd bacillus type urease negative org~ni.cmc of compost and soil origin were propagated in 30 sterile nntriçnt medium. The cultures were transferred thrice to activate the cellular metabolism. A stPrili7P,d 12% solids medium was prepared by heating it to 170F to 190F, holding for 45 minutes to l hour, and cooling to 90F. The org~nicmc wereinocnl~tP~ into this 12% solids mP(lillm The amount of inoculum used was one percent. The cultures were incubated and neutralized at specific intervals to m~ximi7e the cell population. At the end of the growth period, the cultures were cooled to 40 S to 50F. Then all the liquid cultures were blended and mixed with dry base cnnci~ting of vegetable flour, carbohydrates, vegetable gum, and sodium montmorillonite. After it is mixed, the entire doughy mass is extruded cold and dried at room ~,llpe,~
Notably, this p~pala~ion includes the spent growth me.dillm and byproducts of growth, such as bacterial enzymes and other beneficial by-products. The culture preparation 10 thus prepared is mixed with the smectite clay, such as sodium montmorillonite, to prepare a pet litter. An ~ltem~tive p~~ Lion is to apply the liquid culture pl~al~on, after growth stage, by spraying it on the smectitp~ clay or other pet litter blend, inclu~ling swelling smectite clays such as sodium montmorillonitP..
In the course of con~ucting these studies, it was discovered that the stimulant,15 yucca schi~igcra extract, had an exceptional stimulatory effect on the urease negative bacteria, especially on propionibacterium species. This result was determined using direct microscopic P.x~min~fion. However, even urease negative bacteria cultures grown in growth medium without yucca schidigera extract exhibited odor inhibition in pet litter. A control me~illm without any bacteria, but with yucca schidigera extract, even 20 when used at high concenl,~lion, could not inhibit odor in pet litter. Urease negative bacteria grown in the presence of yucca schidigera extract exhibited significantly better ability to inhibit odor in pet litter, as compared to urease negative bacteria grown without this stimulant. Possibly the exceptional growth of bacteria in the presence of yucca sçhi(lig~P.r~ extract leads to production of signific~ntly different bacterial by-25 products. When the relative qu~ntities of other ingredients in the growth media werevaried, no similar advantage was found.
The term "treated litter" and the like will be used throughout to refer to pet litter of any description to which urease negative org~nism.c have been applied, unless context in~ic~tes otherwise.
The term, "unllea~d litter" and the like will be used throughout to refer to petlitter of any description to which urease negative org~nicm.c have not been applied, unless context in-lic~tes othen,vise.
The terms, "benP.fici~l org~ni.~ms," "ben~.fici~l culture" or the like, refer to urease 5 negative b.~cteri~ or cultures of same, unless context in(~ t~, othenvise.
The terms, "culture pl~t~aLion," "bacterial pl.~a,alion," "b.~cteri~l enzyme culture additive" or the like refer to a urease negative b~ct~ri~ in combin~tion with spent growth me~ium and growth by-products, such as enzymes and, optionally depending on conte~t, solidifying and bulking agents, unless context inrli~tP.s otherwise.
A culture preparation for application to pet litter is prepared by first formulating a basic m~tri~nt medillm 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 phosph~te, and sodium and 15 bicarbonate; stimulants, such as powdered yucca schit~igera extract; and water. A 100 lb. mixture of m~ m is p~ ,d from the following ingredients, t;~Lplessed as weight percent.
Ingredient Percentage Typical P~e~elled Range Range SweetWhey 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 Sodiùm 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 liquid culture is prepared by reconstituting the medium at the rate of 12%
solids by weight in warm water. Next, using acid or base neutralizer, pH is adjusted to 6.8 to 7Ø The mP~ m is heated with constant agitation to 190F and held at that temperature for 40-45 minlltPs Then the medium is cooled to 90F and inoculated with individual urease negative strains of lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis, pediococcus cerevisiae, pediococcus ~Cit~ rtiri~ pediococcus pPntos~Pce lc, streptococcus faecium, propionih~cterium .chPrm~nii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, leuconostoc mesentP.roides ssp. cremoris, leuconostoc mesçnteroides ssp. dextranicum, lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and non specific urease negative compost and soil origin, ~mi~P.ntified mixed flora. The org~ ",c are allowed to grow until pH drops to 5.8. Then, the cultl-res are neutralized to pH 6.2 using an ~lk~line neutralizer such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or ammonium hydroxide. The process is contin~led, often ten to fifteen times, until the pH no longer drops below pH 5.8. At this stage, most of the mltri~.nt.c are exh~lstPcl and a sufficient population is established in the medium The live cell count concclllldlion at this stage is approximately 2 to 5 billion org~nicmc per gram.
Next, the medinm is cooled to 50F by circulating cold water through cooling tubes. The fully grown liquid culture is blended in a s~dlc vessel with dried vegetable flours or vegetable flour and bentonite or other suitable dry material to bring it to a doughy concictenry~ thereby producing a culture preparation. The cultureplc~ on is extruded, dried, and milled to the co~cictPncy of gr~nlllP.s or f~e, 200 mesh powder.
The dried bacterial prcpdrdLion is blended with smectite clay or other suitable granular absorbent to form a treated pet litter. The dried bacterial prc~dld~ion can be supplied as an independent additive, to be mixed with any selected pet litter, such as by a pet owner or pet litter supplier. Simil~rly, the bacterial ~lc~lion can be mixed with a suitable absorbent m~teri~l and supplied ac a treated pet litter product. It is WO 96/11570 PCItUS95tl3004 simil~rly possible to offer a treated pet litter in a package that also serves as a litter box.
These org~nicm.c have been tested individually and in combin~tion.c at the rate of 0.1% to 5% by weight in sodium be~ e In a preli...;..~, y qualitative test, 300 gm 5 s~mrlPs of treated litter were prepared. Cat urine, from veterinary supply sources, was added to each s~mrlç, and the s~mpl~s were allowed to sit at room ~lllpC.alUle for a period of three weeks. Equivalent control s~mples con.ci.cted of untreated bentQnite. A
three member panel evaluated odor of all aged s~mrl~.s. The result was that the s~mpl~s treated with urease negative bacteria had less odor than the control s~mples 10 Samples using a combin~tion of two species of urease negative bacteria showed still lower odor. Samples treated with urease positive bacteria were found to have powerful odor, stronger than the control .c~mrlec Based upon this prelimin~ry showing of efficacy, further tests were run to delel...;..e field efficacy and acceptance by ~nim~l.s and hnm~n.c All tests were 15 conducted using the culture pleL)a,ed according to F~x~mple 1.
Qualitative efficacy tests were contiuct~.d A seven to ten day test of animal absorbents, with and without the benefici~l culture, was run in households having cats.
Sample A was ordinary sodium b~.ntQnit~ cat litter; Sample B was sodium bentonite 20 treated with 1% by weight of a culture p~p~lion of beneficial or~ni.sm.c, as prepared in Fx~mrle 1. This high level of a pl~pa.~Lion of these or~ni.cm.c was used to determine whether high levels would be accepted by cats. Seven households returned bags of cat wastes removed from litter boxes of each sample. All cats used both s~mples, showing that litter coJ~ i ng the culture preparation was accepted. Based on 25 weights of the returned bags of wastes, most of the cats pr~relled B.
WO 96/11570 PCT/US95tl3004 WEIGHT WEIGHT NUMBER OF PREFER
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B CATS
5 (lbs.) (lbs.)
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 30 method of this invention may comprise the following.
DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION
Against the descrihed background, it is therefore a general object of the invention to provide an improved odor inhibiting animal absorbent or tre~ttnto.nt of animal absorbents suited for use in home litter boxes, in which animal wastes are 5 p~Gvellled from producing obnoxious odors.
A more specific object is to provide an animal absoll,Gll~ that can delay odor form~tion for at least one day.and preferably longer, after the waste contacts the absorben~
Another object is to provide an odor inhihiting animal absorbent that can work 10 in cnmhin~tion with a clllmring litter, so that the absorbent and the animal wastes are m~int~ined in operative contact.
A further object is to create a deodorized animal absorbent that is safe for usein a litter box, with respect to both the pet and hnm~n~ in the house.
Still another object is to provide a deodori7ing tre~tmçnt for pet litter that 15 requires very little additive or treating agent. A low concentration of additive or treating agent is desirable to make the tre~tm~nt affordable and prevent the pet from tracking the additive or agent.
ition~l objects, advantages and novel features of the invention shall be set forth in part in the description that follows, and in part will become app~clll to those 20 skilled in the art upon çx~min~tion of the following or may be learned by the practice of the invention. The object and the advantages of the invention may be realiæd and ~tt~ined by means of the instrllm~nt~litif~s and in comhin~ti-)n~ particularly pointed out in the appended claims.
According to the invention, an odor lGl~dillg pet litter is formed of an absorbent 25 composition and a urease negative bacterial culture combined with the absorbent composition, in an effective amount to inhibit growth of urease positive b~cteri~ when, in use, the absorbent composition is wetted with animal waste conl~ g 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 30 urease negative b~rter~
The accompanying drawing, which is incorporated in and forms a part of the specification illu~ ~s the performance of a preferred embodiment of the present invention, and together with the description, serves to explain the principles of the invention. In the drawing:
BRIEF DESCRIPIION OF THE DRAVVING
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 inhihiting pet litter, a method of treating pet litter m~tPri~lc to achieve odor inhibition, and a litter box col-s~h-;,~g the treated pet litter m~t~ri~l 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 15 result that ammonia is not formed and released with the 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 plcve~ formation of obnoxious odor.
Org~nicm.~ of this type are effective in low concentrations against the volumes of waste 20 typically deposited in a litter box. In ~d~litiQn~ such org~ni~mc are not harmful to ~nim~lc or hnm~n~
In another aspect, the invention is an intPr~ctive system of urease negative org~ni~m~ and buffer means. When the system is subjected to wastes, such as acidic urine, it m~int~in~ pH in a range favoring the organism. The buffer means may be the 25 pet litter m~teri~l, itself, especially when the litter m~teri~l 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 m~teri~l~ Numerous clumping pet litters are known in the art, including some that occur naturally and others that are man-made. A preferred 30 clumping litter is formed of a substantial concentration of sodium bel~to~ P, which is naturally occurring and inherently gels or clumps when wet. When used with other clays or pet litter m~tP.ri~ls, the concçntration of sodium bentc)nit~P. must be at least about fifty percent to realize the natural clnmping action. Because sodium bentQnitP is a natural cl~lmping m~tPri~l and also is a s-lit~blP buffer, this single m~tPri~l is a preferred choice. Further considerations are that sodium ~ ton;lr iS plentiful, in~pe~cive~ and 5 already has been used as pet litter for many dec~(1Pc 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 ~ min~ oct~hpflral sheet. F~ch~nge~hlp cations are found belween the silicate layers. The layers are stacked with oxygen atoms from each 10 layer being disposed in a common int~rme~i~te 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 the lattice structure.
Thus, the .smectite clays are swell easily in the presence of water or other polar moleclllP.s. Some examples of smecliles are the dioctahedral smectites:
15 montmorillonit~, bei~P,llitP, and non~l~nile; and the trioct~hedr~l smectites: hectorite and saponite.
A number of urease negative org~nicmC 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.
20 lactis bio var diacetylactis; group D streptococcus, such as streptococcus faecium;
pediococcus such as pediococcus aci(~ ctici~ pediococcus cerevisiae, and pediococcus pPntos~pceus; propionih~ctprium such as propionih~cterium .chP.rrn~nii and propionibacterium freudenreichii; leuconostoc such as leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp.
cremoris and leuconostoc me,c~ eroides ssp. dextranicum; and lactobacillus such as 25 lactobacillus acidophilus and lactobacillus bulga~cus. Other nonspecific bacillus type orE~nicmc of compost and soil origin also are c~n~id~tP.c Urease negative strains belonging to the genus lactococcus, streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus, and non-specific unidPntifiPd bacillus type urease negative org~ni.cmc of compost and soil origin were propagated in 30 sterile nntriçnt medium. The cultures were transferred thrice to activate the cellular metabolism. A stPrili7P,d 12% solids medium was prepared by heating it to 170F to 190F, holding for 45 minutes to l hour, and cooling to 90F. The org~nicmc wereinocnl~tP~ into this 12% solids mP(lillm The amount of inoculum used was one percent. The cultures were incubated and neutralized at specific intervals to m~ximi7e the cell population. At the end of the growth period, the cultures were cooled to 40 S to 50F. Then all the liquid cultures were blended and mixed with dry base cnnci~ting of vegetable flour, carbohydrates, vegetable gum, and sodium montmorillonite. After it is mixed, the entire doughy mass is extruded cold and dried at room ~,llpe,~
Notably, this p~pala~ion includes the spent growth me.dillm and byproducts of growth, such as bacterial enzymes and other beneficial by-products. The culture preparation 10 thus prepared is mixed with the smectite clay, such as sodium montmorillonite, to prepare a pet litter. An ~ltem~tive p~~ Lion is to apply the liquid culture pl~al~on, after growth stage, by spraying it on the smectitp~ clay or other pet litter blend, inclu~ling swelling smectite clays such as sodium montmorillonitP..
In the course of con~ucting these studies, it was discovered that the stimulant,15 yucca schi~igcra extract, had an exceptional stimulatory effect on the urease negative bacteria, especially on propionibacterium species. This result was determined using direct microscopic P.x~min~fion. However, even urease negative bacteria cultures grown in growth medium without yucca schidigera extract exhibited odor inhibition in pet litter. A control me~illm without any bacteria, but with yucca schidigera extract, even 20 when used at high concenl,~lion, could not inhibit odor in pet litter. Urease negative bacteria grown in the presence of yucca schidigera extract exhibited significantly better ability to inhibit odor in pet litter, as compared to urease negative bacteria grown without this stimulant. Possibly the exceptional growth of bacteria in the presence of yucca sçhi(lig~P.r~ extract leads to production of signific~ntly different bacterial by-25 products. When the relative qu~ntities of other ingredients in the growth media werevaried, no similar advantage was found.
The term "treated litter" and the like will be used throughout to refer to pet litter of any description to which urease negative org~nism.c have been applied, unless context in~ic~tes otherwise.
The term, "unllea~d litter" and the like will be used throughout to refer to petlitter of any description to which urease negative org~nicm.c have not been applied, unless context in-lic~tes othen,vise.
The terms, "benP.fici~l org~ni.~ms," "ben~.fici~l culture" or the like, refer to urease 5 negative b.~cteri~ or cultures of same, unless context in(~ t~, othenvise.
The terms, "culture pl~t~aLion," "bacterial pl.~a,alion," "b.~cteri~l enzyme culture additive" or the like refer to a urease negative b~ct~ri~ in combin~tion with spent growth me~ium and growth by-products, such as enzymes and, optionally depending on conte~t, solidifying and bulking agents, unless context inrli~tP.s otherwise.
A culture preparation for application to pet litter is prepared by first formulating a basic m~tri~nt medillm 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 phosph~te, and sodium and 15 bicarbonate; stimulants, such as powdered yucca schit~igera extract; and water. A 100 lb. mixture of m~ m is p~ ,d from the following ingredients, t;~Lplessed as weight percent.
Ingredient Percentage Typical P~e~elled Range Range SweetWhey 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 Sodiùm 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 liquid culture is prepared by reconstituting the medium at the rate of 12%
solids by weight in warm water. Next, using acid or base neutralizer, pH is adjusted to 6.8 to 7Ø The mP~ m is heated with constant agitation to 190F and held at that temperature for 40-45 minlltPs Then the medium is cooled to 90F and inoculated with individual urease negative strains of lactococcus lactis ssp. cremoris, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis, lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis bio var diacetylactis, pediococcus cerevisiae, pediococcus ~Cit~ rtiri~ pediococcus pPntos~Pce lc, streptococcus faecium, propionih~cterium .chPrm~nii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, leuconostoc mesentP.roides ssp. cremoris, leuconostoc mesçnteroides ssp. dextranicum, lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and non specific urease negative compost and soil origin, ~mi~P.ntified mixed flora. The org~ ",c are allowed to grow until pH drops to 5.8. Then, the cultl-res are neutralized to pH 6.2 using an ~lk~line neutralizer such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or ammonium hydroxide. The process is contin~led, often ten to fifteen times, until the pH no longer drops below pH 5.8. At this stage, most of the mltri~.nt.c are exh~lstPcl and a sufficient population is established in the medium The live cell count concclllldlion at this stage is approximately 2 to 5 billion org~nicmc per gram.
Next, the medinm is cooled to 50F by circulating cold water through cooling tubes. The fully grown liquid culture is blended in a s~dlc vessel with dried vegetable flours or vegetable flour and bentonite or other suitable dry material to bring it to a doughy concictenry~ thereby producing a culture preparation. The cultureplc~ on is extruded, dried, and milled to the co~cictPncy of gr~nlllP.s or f~e, 200 mesh powder.
The dried bacterial prcpdrdLion is blended with smectite clay or other suitable granular absorbent to form a treated pet litter. The dried bacterial prc~dld~ion can be supplied as an independent additive, to be mixed with any selected pet litter, such as by a pet owner or pet litter supplier. Simil~rly, the bacterial ~lc~lion can be mixed with a suitable absorbent m~teri~l and supplied ac a treated pet litter product. It is WO 96/11570 PCItUS95tl3004 simil~rly possible to offer a treated pet litter in a package that also serves as a litter box.
These org~nicm.c have been tested individually and in combin~tion.c at the rate of 0.1% to 5% by weight in sodium be~ e In a preli...;..~, y qualitative test, 300 gm 5 s~mrlPs of treated litter were prepared. Cat urine, from veterinary supply sources, was added to each s~mrlç, and the s~mpl~s were allowed to sit at room ~lllpC.alUle for a period of three weeks. Equivalent control s~mples con.ci.cted of untreated bentQnite. A
three member panel evaluated odor of all aged s~mrl~.s. The result was that the s~mpl~s treated with urease negative bacteria had less odor than the control s~mples 10 Samples using a combin~tion of two species of urease negative bacteria showed still lower odor. Samples treated with urease positive bacteria were found to have powerful odor, stronger than the control .c~mrlec Based upon this prelimin~ry showing of efficacy, further tests were run to delel...;..e field efficacy and acceptance by ~nim~l.s and hnm~n.c All tests were 15 conducted using the culture pleL)a,ed according to F~x~mple 1.
Qualitative efficacy tests were contiuct~.d A seven to ten day test of animal absorbents, with and without the benefici~l culture, was run in households having cats.
Sample A was ordinary sodium b~.ntQnit~ cat litter; Sample B was sodium bentonite 20 treated with 1% by weight of a culture p~p~lion of beneficial or~ni.sm.c, as prepared in Fx~mrle 1. This high level of a pl~pa.~Lion of these or~ni.cm.c was used to determine whether high levels would be accepted by cats. Seven households returned bags of cat wastes removed from litter boxes of each sample. All cats used both s~mples, showing that litter coJ~ i ng the culture preparation was accepted. Based on 25 weights of the returned bags of wastes, most of the cats pr~relled B.
WO 96/11570 PCT/US95tl3004 WEIGHT WEIGHT NUMBER OF PREFER
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B CATS
5 (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 con~-lctPd on the urine soaked clumps from the waste collection bags:
ODOR TEST: S~mplPs A and B each consisted of a collection of variously aged specimens, ranging from 0-10 days old. Each collection was kept in a bucket, and the odor from the bucket was evaluated in gross. The urine clumps of Sample A were 20 pungent, repulsive, and ammoniacal. The urine clumps of Sample B had a mild ferm~P.nt~tive, non-repulsive odor. This result shows field efficacy.
CLUMPABILl~Y TEST: At the time of collection, clumps from both Sample A and Sample B were cohesive and non-friable when collPctPd daily. The aged clumps were different. Clumps from Sample A were cohesive and non-friable; clumps from 25 Sample B were slightly less cohesive and slightly more friable. This result shows that a reaction occurred, in-luced by the bent-fici~l c~ lres 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 30 from Sample A litter 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 utilized by the benPfici~l cultures. This test was confirmed by using pure ammonia and pure urea. The ammonia samples frothed in the presence of peroxide, while the urea sample did not, in~ic~ting that it was the ammonia in Sample A that caused frothing.
S NON-CLUMPING LITTER TEST: A one week test was run, with and without the bemP.fici~l org~ni.sm.c, on a commercially available non-clllmping litter to ~e~,. .,.;.,P
the efficacy of the treatmpnt in .cit~l~tion.c where urine could run through the litter and pool at the bottom of the litter box. Sample C was untreated and Sample D cont~inP.~
1% by weight of a culture ~r~alaLion of b~llericial org~ni.cm.c. After three cats had used the .c~mplP.s for one week, urine odor from Sample C was notably stronger than that from Sample D. This result indicates that the beneficial org~nicmc are useful with non-clumping litters.
CONCENTRATION TEST: Sample E was prepared by mixing ten pounds of sodium be..ln,~ litter with five pounds of Sample B, producing a 0.33% concentration of a culture plepa~alion of beneficial org~ni.cmc The odor of Sample E was subst~nti~lly reduced as co.l,paled to the odor of Sample A.
AGING TEST: The ammonia test was performed on both fresh and aged, treated litter.
a. Fresh: Very fresh urine clumps -- less than 8 hours old -- were taken from three different litter boxes. Sample A, Sample B, and Sample E.
The ammonia test was performed. No foaming was observed in any s~mple, in~lic~ting 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 litter box. The sample bubbled vigorously in(lic~ting that urea had converted to ~mmoni~ This result demonstrates that urea fixation is stable for less than one week. Eventual breakdown is valuable in converting wastes to usable fertilizer.
CONTROL TEST:
a. Ben~.fici~l Or~nicm.c: The ammonia test was run on 100% culture plep~lion of bçnefici~l organicms. Only an occasional bubble was observed, indic~ting that the culture preparation alone does not interfere with the foaming/nonfoaming test results.
b. Urine: The ammonia test was run on a fresh sample of human urine.
No foaming resulted. This in~ic~tes that nitrogen is present as urea and later changed to ammonia.
FECAL MATTER TEST: The ammonia test was run on fresh, less that 8 hours old fecal matter from Sample A and Sample B litter bo~es. Sample A foamed vigorously with a brown foam. Sample B had a few tiny bubbles and no fo~ming This in~icat~s that the ben~fici~l or~ni.cms are lc~ding the form~tion of odor c~ucing nitrogenous compounds in cat feces, helping with odor control.
It is generally known that the primary odor causing component in cat urine is ammonia, formed by the breakdown of the urea in fresh cat urine. The odor in catfeces 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 well as the culture, itself, and both the treated and untreated sodium benlo~ , itself, were tested with sensitive instruments. It was found that skatole and indole were not detect~ble by the instruments at the levels found in litter boxes.
A~)pa~ ly, the concent~tion of these compounds was too low for analytical detection.
Thus, no q~ntit~tive tests could be conducted on these compounds. Inst~lment~l 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 billion. Qualitative tests, using the human nose, showed that litter treated with beneficial org~nicmc was effective in red~lcing odors of skatole and indole.
The following s~mr~les were ev~ te~
Sample A -- untreated Na Bçntonite litter.
"A" Urine -- from untr~aled Sample A one day old.
"B" Urine -- from treated Sample B one day old.
The determin~tion of ammonia by Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Method 350.3-1974. Appro~ ately 25 grarns 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 mim~tes. The gas was purged through 110 ml of slightly acidic deionized water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3 SAMPLE ID CONCENTRATION OF AMMONIA
Sample A -- litter only 0.017 mg/L
"B" Urine - treated 0.026 mg/L
10"A" Urine- untreated 0.087 mg/L
Reliable detection limit for this method is 0.05 mg/L.
The EPA Method 350.3 analysis in(li~ted a dirre,c;.lce in the ammonia concentration observed in the .c~mplPc Measurements of ammonia level in the blank litter and in the urine from the treated litter were below the reliable detection limit of the instrument, which could introduce inaccuracy in the reported levels of ammonia.
Nevertheless, the results inriit ~tPd a ~ ;ve difference. The untreated urine showed an increasing ammonia concPnt~tinn in a 25 gram sample.
Blank specimens of both Sample A, untreated blank litter, and Sample B, treated blank litter, were evaluated as controls. To determine qn~Lil~l;ve performance of the culture, progressively aged urine ~mplP.s from both batches of litter were evaluated on a day-to-day aging basis over an elapsed period of t~-vo weeks. The freshest samples were less than 8 hours old, having been taken on the day of the test. Further s~mples 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 they reached 12 and 14 days aging.
The d~le. ",;"~tion of ammonia by PotentiomP.tric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Method 350.3-1974. Approxim~tely 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 millilitP.r.~ per minute for twenty mimltes The gas was purged through 50 ml of slight acidic Nano-pure water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3.
TABLE 4 -- QUANTlIATIVE TEST FOR AMMONIA
SAMPLE B NH3 ,ug/g SAMPLE A NH3 I~g/g TREATED UNTREATED
Control 0.01 Control 0.02 Day 1 0.36 Day 1 3.61 10 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 15Day 12 1,890 Day 12 2,847 Day 14 2,320 Day 14 2,435 The data for the first six days was placed on a graph and a line of best fit wasdrawn for both treated and u~ ca~ed s~mrlP.~s. The graph shows a difference in the 20 a-m-monia concentration observed in the samples. The treated samples showed a lower ammonia concentration as compared to the untreated s~mples from day to day. The ammonia 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 ammonia 25 content of the untreated sample aged 14 days as opposed to the untreated sample aged 12 days may be due to depletion of the urea.
These results derived from the graph show that the urease negative org~nicm~
delay the form~tion of ammonia at the level of human olfactory detection, which is about 20 ppm or 20 ,ug/g, by about two ad-1ition~l days. In an untreated litter box, this 30 threshold level is reached in two to three days. In the treated litter box, the threshold level is not reached until almost five days.
WO 96/11570 PCT/US95tl3004 It is desirable to detP minP the effective concentrations of the culture. The culture is more costly than typical litter such as bçntonitP. Therefore, the cost of adding the culture to ull~eaL~d litter might inflllence the price of litter in a subst~nti~l f~hion S Since cat litter generally is an ine~pellsi~,re, disposable commodity, it would be desir~bkP
know the minimllm useful level of the culture.
Six litter boxes were prepared with ten pounds of granular be.ntonite and culture pl~dtion. The culture prep~tion was pulverized in a blender and further crushed with a mortar and pestle. A postage scale was used to weigh the culture p,ep~dlion;
for smaller dos~gPs, estim~tPs were done by volume. For example, 0.1~o was 1/lOth 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 p,~dlion.
Four cats had free access to the six litter boxes; not all boxes were used each day.
Urine sample clumps were scooped daily and placed in labelled, unsealed plastic bags.
The llnce~lP,~ bags were placed in a five gallon bucket. So ~at each bag was exposed to air, the bucket lid was left ajar. The control samples were kept in a bucket separate from the treated s~mphP.s to avoid cross co~ ."il~tion of ammonia.
The s~mples were subjected to the Ammonia Test of Example 1. Bubbling of the peroxide/urine clump sample indic~tes the presence of ammonia. No bubbling in~icat~P.d the absPn~e of ammonia. A few tiny bubbles in~iicatPd a small amount of ammonia. Many bubbles and swelling of the sample with air bubbles indicated a cignific~nt 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 l was cond~lct~Pd by snifflng the sample clumps. The results are reported in Table S with odor rated as follows:
- = could not perceive ammonia + = slight ammonia odor ++ = moderate ammonia odor +++ = strong ammonia odor ~ ~ , , , +
~ cq O ~E~ + +
;~
+ + +
g3 ¢ o Cq ~
o O
E~ + +
o c ~ E~ + + + +
,~ O ~ , m The culture treated s~mplçs had a mild, yeasty odor. The fragrance of the culture itself could be detect~(l in the s~mples having the higher dosages. The data shows the culture p~ on to be effective in l~dillg form~tion of ammonia down to 0.1%, which was the lowest level tested. After five days, all s~mples treated with the culture pl~a aLion had no ammonia odor. The peroxide test for ammonia, when applied to the treated s~mples, showed no response on days one and two and a slight response or no response on days 3 to 5.
It is believed that a smectite clay mineral with sodium as the domin~nt cation associated with the e~ch~nge sites of the ~m~P~tite~ is especially suited to serve as a buffer means for pH control in a clumpable pet litter. Sodium montmorillonite, also known as sodium bçl~lQ~ e or Wyoming bentonite, is a readily available and widely accepted Px~mple of such a smectite clay. Other suitable buffer systems might employ ures of salts and acids of carbonate, phosphate or borate anions. When liquid isimbibed by the pet litter to form a clump, the sodium smectite or other buffer means additives will create a pH greater than 7 and appro~ tely pH of 9 for OptilllUlll 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 small change in the pH of the system.
In the combin~tion of clllmping pet litter and dried urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive, the sodium bentonitP provides a desirable buffer property to pet litter in ~ddition to its clllmping propelLy when exposed to acidic pet urine. The burre~ g effect of sodium smectite clays or inorganic carbonate, phosphate and borate buffer additives m~int~in.c a neutral or basic pH in the urine clump. The basic pH of the urine clump provides the appropriate conditions to favor growth of the urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive and to inhibit the growth of urease positive bacteria from the enviro~ ,ent.
In order to determine buffering action of pet litter, three pet litter m~teri~l~ were evaluated for pH over seven days of use by three cats. The first product was pure sodium bPntonitP. The second was commercially available Scoop Away litter, a product of A&M Products. The composition of Scoop Away is about 50% sodium b~ntonite and 50% other clays and chemical additives. The third was commercially availableFresh Step litter, a product of Clorox Corporation. Fresh Step is known to contain attapulgite clay and may contain fuller's earth, as well. Each of these three m~teri~l~
5 was tested in both untreated and treated versions. The treated m~teri~l~ contained 0.5%
by weight of the culture plcp~lion. The six s~mples were tested for pH both whenthe s~mples were gathered and after the gathered samples were aged over a time period ranging from æro days to six ~tldition~l days. The pH of a control sample of each m~teri~l, which was not used by the cats, was measured initially to detP.rmine a base 10 reading and was evaluated again after six days aging.
TABLE 6 -- pH OF PET Lll l~K OVER SEVEN DAY PERIOD
Treated Treated Treated Sample Day Sodium Sodium Scoop Scoop Fresh Fresh BentonitP Be.~lon;~ 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 8.5Day 2 - aged 8 8.5 8.5 8 8.5 15 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 ~lk~lin~ control m~ti~.ri~l, with pH 9. Fresh exposure to cat urine caused a drop in the pH of untreated sodium bentonit~ to either pH 8 or pH 8.5. With age, dhe s~mples showed very little change. In two cases the sample pH dropped slighdy. Buffering appeared to be effective and the pH st~bili7Pd in the range from 7-9. The treated sample of sodium bentonite showed relatively less pH drop and r~m~in~d relatively more stable, indic~ting 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 still lower 5 control pH of 7. It showed both increases and decreases in pH with both fresh and aged exposure to cat urine. Bnffenng appeared to be effective and pH remained in the range from 7-9 in all samples.
Both treated and untreated control s~mplPs of Fresh Step had an inte.rmediate control pH of 8.5. With fresh exposure to cat urine, both s~mrles of Fresh Step had 10 a stable pH that changed only slightly, if at all, from the control value. All s~mplP.s of all three pet litters m~int~inPd pH in the range from 7-9 throughout the tests, which est~hli~hed that the buLr~ g action of the smçctite clay is sufficient to m~int~in the pet litter in the desired pH range at least through the errecliv~ period of the culture.
The preÇe,t;nlial growth of urease negative bacteria inhibits the bacterial 15 conversion of urea to ~mmoni~ by urease positive bacteria from the environme.nt Ammonia is the major odor component of the urine clump. If the pH of the urine clump becomes acidic, urease positive bacteria can grow and will generate ammonia from urea with a consequent odor. The buffer and urease negative bacteria culture st~bili7es the urea for apploxi~ tely three extra days, to a total of about five days, until 20 urease positive bacteri~ eventually invade the urine clump and begin generation of ammonia and odor.
An improved culture and p,~aldlion me~od were devised in order to increase the finPnPcs of the culture preparation and to elimin~te grin~ing of the culture25 preparation. According to the procedures of FY~mplP. 1, thè urease negative cultures were grown in liquid me(li~lm, reconctit~tPd from dry form at 12.0% solids level and heat treated at 180F by holding for 45 minutPs Then the medi~lm was cooled to 90F
and was incubated with previously t~n~ferred urease negative cultures. The medium was incub~tpd until pH dropped to 5.2. At this stage, it was neutralized to pH 7.0 and 30 the culture was allowed to incubate further. The neutralization steps were continued until pH no longer dropped, indicating the depletion of nl~trient.C. At this stage 10 WO ~6/11570 PCT/US95/13004 pounds of sterile mixed 25% dextrose and 10% autoly_ed yeast extract solution was added for every 1000 pounds of liquid me~ m, and the incubation was further continued until pH dropped towards 5Ø This last step was introduced to furtherenh~nce cell growth. Then, the culture was cooled to 60F and neutrali7Pd to pH 7.0 S using a 50% solution of sodium hydroAide.
The culture thus prepared was added to granular silica at the ~l~rellcd rate of 25% weight~weight, with a range from 10 to 50%. The culture, added to silica, was dried at ambient lel)lpG~ c;. After the culture was dried, powdered carbonate salts, for example sodium bicarbonate, were added to the dried silica and culture at the p~Grelled rate of 20% by weight, with a range from 10 to 40%. The culture plus carbonate mix was uniformly bl~nded and was used to inoculate bentonite at the rate of 0.1 to 0.25% by weight, for use as animal litter.
The improved culture plep~Lion of this e~c~mple, prepared according to this new method, does not require ~rin(ling and worked çfficiçtltly. The following table 15 evaluates the perforrn~nce of this il~proved culture pl~Lion in comp~ri~on to the original culture p~cpa,~lion of F~mplP 1. The improved culture preparation is referred to in the table as "new culture preparation."
Tests were run using Dr. Elsey's brand scoopable litter, a 6 x 20 mesh sodium bentonitf from Black Hills Bçntonite Dosage was 0.2 percent or one level tablespoon 20 (0.6 ounces) in 18 pounds of litter. After seven days, both the control and the original forrn~ tion had a strong ammonia odor and foamed vigorously in the qualitative ammonia test of FY~mple 2. The improved culture had a mild, yeasty smell and no foam.
W O 96tll570 PC~rtUS95tl3004 Z o ,o ~
~E~
V~
O ~ ~ ' ' + + +
O ~ ~
¢ ~ ~
o O ¢
~Ye ~ ,S~aS
O ~ C ~ ~I
The foregoing is considered as illllctrative only of the principles of the invention. Fur~er, since llwllel~us modifications and ch~nges will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact formulation S and operation ~escrihe~i and accordingly all s~it~hle mo-lific~tions and equivalents may be regarded as falling within the scope of the invention as defined by the claims that follow.
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 con~-lctPd on the urine soaked clumps from the waste collection bags:
ODOR TEST: S~mplPs A and B each consisted of a collection of variously aged specimens, ranging from 0-10 days old. Each collection was kept in a bucket, and the odor from the bucket was evaluated in gross. The urine clumps of Sample A were 20 pungent, repulsive, and ammoniacal. The urine clumps of Sample B had a mild ferm~P.nt~tive, non-repulsive odor. This result shows field efficacy.
CLUMPABILl~Y TEST: At the time of collection, clumps from both Sample A and Sample B were cohesive and non-friable when collPctPd daily. The aged clumps were different. Clumps from Sample A were cohesive and non-friable; clumps from 25 Sample B were slightly less cohesive and slightly more friable. This result shows that a reaction occurred, in-luced by the bent-fici~l c~ lres 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 30 from Sample A litter 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 utilized by the benPfici~l cultures. This test was confirmed by using pure ammonia and pure urea. The ammonia samples frothed in the presence of peroxide, while the urea sample did not, in~ic~ting that it was the ammonia in Sample A that caused frothing.
S NON-CLUMPING LITTER TEST: A one week test was run, with and without the bemP.fici~l org~ni.sm.c, on a commercially available non-clllmping litter to ~e~,. .,.;.,P
the efficacy of the treatmpnt in .cit~l~tion.c where urine could run through the litter and pool at the bottom of the litter box. Sample C was untreated and Sample D cont~inP.~
1% by weight of a culture ~r~alaLion of b~llericial org~ni.cm.c. After three cats had used the .c~mplP.s for one week, urine odor from Sample C was notably stronger than that from Sample D. This result indicates that the beneficial org~nicmc are useful with non-clumping litters.
CONCENTRATION TEST: Sample E was prepared by mixing ten pounds of sodium be..ln,~ litter with five pounds of Sample B, producing a 0.33% concentration of a culture plepa~alion of beneficial org~ni.cmc The odor of Sample E was subst~nti~lly reduced as co.l,paled to the odor of Sample A.
AGING TEST: The ammonia test was performed on both fresh and aged, treated litter.
a. Fresh: Very fresh urine clumps -- less than 8 hours old -- were taken from three different litter boxes. Sample A, Sample B, and Sample E.
The ammonia test was performed. No foaming was observed in any s~mple, in~lic~ting 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 litter box. The sample bubbled vigorously in(lic~ting that urea had converted to ~mmoni~ This result demonstrates that urea fixation is stable for less than one week. Eventual breakdown is valuable in converting wastes to usable fertilizer.
CONTROL TEST:
a. Ben~.fici~l Or~nicm.c: The ammonia test was run on 100% culture plep~lion of bçnefici~l organicms. Only an occasional bubble was observed, indic~ting that the culture preparation alone does not interfere with the foaming/nonfoaming test results.
b. Urine: The ammonia test was run on a fresh sample of human urine.
No foaming resulted. This in~ic~tes that nitrogen is present as urea and later changed to ammonia.
FECAL MATTER TEST: The ammonia test was run on fresh, less that 8 hours old fecal matter from Sample A and Sample B litter bo~es. Sample A foamed vigorously with a brown foam. Sample B had a few tiny bubbles and no fo~ming This in~icat~s that the ben~fici~l or~ni.cms are lc~ding the form~tion of odor c~ucing nitrogenous compounds in cat feces, helping with odor control.
It is generally known that the primary odor causing component in cat urine is ammonia, formed by the breakdown of the urea in fresh cat urine. The odor in catfeces 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 well as the culture, itself, and both the treated and untreated sodium benlo~ , itself, were tested with sensitive instruments. It was found that skatole and indole were not detect~ble by the instruments at the levels found in litter boxes.
A~)pa~ ly, the concent~tion of these compounds was too low for analytical detection.
Thus, no q~ntit~tive tests could be conducted on these compounds. Inst~lment~l 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 billion. Qualitative tests, using the human nose, showed that litter treated with beneficial org~nicmc was effective in red~lcing odors of skatole and indole.
The following s~mr~les were ev~ te~
Sample A -- untreated Na Bçntonite litter.
"A" Urine -- from untr~aled Sample A one day old.
"B" Urine -- from treated Sample B one day old.
The determin~tion of ammonia by Potentiometric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Method 350.3-1974. Appro~ ately 25 grarns 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 mim~tes. The gas was purged through 110 ml of slightly acidic deionized water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3 SAMPLE ID CONCENTRATION OF AMMONIA
Sample A -- litter only 0.017 mg/L
"B" Urine - treated 0.026 mg/L
10"A" Urine- untreated 0.087 mg/L
Reliable detection limit for this method is 0.05 mg/L.
The EPA Method 350.3 analysis in(li~ted a dirre,c;.lce in the ammonia concentration observed in the .c~mplPc Measurements of ammonia level in the blank litter and in the urine from the treated litter were below the reliable detection limit of the instrument, which could introduce inaccuracy in the reported levels of ammonia.
Nevertheless, the results inriit ~tPd a ~ ;ve difference. The untreated urine showed an increasing ammonia concPnt~tinn in a 25 gram sample.
Blank specimens of both Sample A, untreated blank litter, and Sample B, treated blank litter, were evaluated as controls. To determine qn~Lil~l;ve performance of the culture, progressively aged urine ~mplP.s from both batches of litter were evaluated on a day-to-day aging basis over an elapsed period of t~-vo weeks. The freshest samples were less than 8 hours old, having been taken on the day of the test. Further s~mples 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 they reached 12 and 14 days aging.
The d~le. ",;"~tion of ammonia by PotentiomP.tric, Ion Selective Electrode was performed according to EPA Method 350.3-1974. Approxim~tely 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 millilitP.r.~ per minute for twenty mimltes The gas was purged through 50 ml of slight acidic Nano-pure water which was then tested for ammonia with EPA Method 350.3.
TABLE 4 -- QUANTlIATIVE TEST FOR AMMONIA
SAMPLE B NH3 ,ug/g SAMPLE A NH3 I~g/g TREATED UNTREATED
Control 0.01 Control 0.02 Day 1 0.36 Day 1 3.61 10 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 15Day 12 1,890 Day 12 2,847 Day 14 2,320 Day 14 2,435 The data for the first six days was placed on a graph and a line of best fit wasdrawn for both treated and u~ ca~ed s~mrlP.~s. The graph shows a difference in the 20 a-m-monia concentration observed in the samples. The treated samples showed a lower ammonia concentration as compared to the untreated s~mples from day to day. The ammonia 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 ammonia 25 content of the untreated sample aged 14 days as opposed to the untreated sample aged 12 days may be due to depletion of the urea.
These results derived from the graph show that the urease negative org~nicm~
delay the form~tion of ammonia at the level of human olfactory detection, which is about 20 ppm or 20 ,ug/g, by about two ad-1ition~l days. In an untreated litter box, this 30 threshold level is reached in two to three days. In the treated litter box, the threshold level is not reached until almost five days.
WO 96/11570 PCT/US95tl3004 It is desirable to detP minP the effective concentrations of the culture. The culture is more costly than typical litter such as bçntonitP. Therefore, the cost of adding the culture to ull~eaL~d litter might inflllence the price of litter in a subst~nti~l f~hion S Since cat litter generally is an ine~pellsi~,re, disposable commodity, it would be desir~bkP
know the minimllm useful level of the culture.
Six litter boxes were prepared with ten pounds of granular be.ntonite and culture pl~dtion. The culture prep~tion was pulverized in a blender and further crushed with a mortar and pestle. A postage scale was used to weigh the culture p,ep~dlion;
for smaller dos~gPs, estim~tPs were done by volume. For example, 0.1~o was 1/lOth 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 p,~dlion.
Four cats had free access to the six litter boxes; not all boxes were used each day.
Urine sample clumps were scooped daily and placed in labelled, unsealed plastic bags.
The llnce~lP,~ bags were placed in a five gallon bucket. So ~at each bag was exposed to air, the bucket lid was left ajar. The control samples were kept in a bucket separate from the treated s~mphP.s to avoid cross co~ ."il~tion of ammonia.
The s~mples were subjected to the Ammonia Test of Example 1. Bubbling of the peroxide/urine clump sample indic~tes the presence of ammonia. No bubbling in~icat~P.d the absPn~e of ammonia. A few tiny bubbles in~iicatPd a small amount of ammonia. Many bubbles and swelling of the sample with air bubbles indicated a cignific~nt 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 l was cond~lct~Pd by snifflng the sample clumps. The results are reported in Table S with odor rated as follows:
- = could not perceive ammonia + = slight ammonia odor ++ = moderate ammonia odor +++ = strong ammonia odor ~ ~ , , , +
~ cq O ~E~ + +
;~
+ + +
g3 ¢ o Cq ~
o O
E~ + +
o c ~ E~ + + + +
,~ O ~ , m The culture treated s~mplçs had a mild, yeasty odor. The fragrance of the culture itself could be detect~(l in the s~mples having the higher dosages. The data shows the culture p~ on to be effective in l~dillg form~tion of ammonia down to 0.1%, which was the lowest level tested. After five days, all s~mples treated with the culture pl~a aLion had no ammonia odor. The peroxide test for ammonia, when applied to the treated s~mples, showed no response on days one and two and a slight response or no response on days 3 to 5.
It is believed that a smectite clay mineral with sodium as the domin~nt cation associated with the e~ch~nge sites of the ~m~P~tite~ is especially suited to serve as a buffer means for pH control in a clumpable pet litter. Sodium montmorillonite, also known as sodium bçl~lQ~ e or Wyoming bentonite, is a readily available and widely accepted Px~mple of such a smectite clay. Other suitable buffer systems might employ ures of salts and acids of carbonate, phosphate or borate anions. When liquid isimbibed by the pet litter to form a clump, the sodium smectite or other buffer means additives will create a pH greater than 7 and appro~ tely pH of 9 for OptilllUlll 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 small change in the pH of the system.
In the combin~tion of clllmping pet litter and dried urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive, the sodium bentonitP provides a desirable buffer property to pet litter in ~ddition to its clllmping propelLy when exposed to acidic pet urine. The burre~ g effect of sodium smectite clays or inorganic carbonate, phosphate and borate buffer additives m~int~in.c a neutral or basic pH in the urine clump. The basic pH of the urine clump provides the appropriate conditions to favor growth of the urease negative bacterial enzyme culture additive and to inhibit the growth of urease positive bacteria from the enviro~ ,ent.
In order to determine buffering action of pet litter, three pet litter m~teri~l~ were evaluated for pH over seven days of use by three cats. The first product was pure sodium bPntonitP. The second was commercially available Scoop Away litter, a product of A&M Products. The composition of Scoop Away is about 50% sodium b~ntonite and 50% other clays and chemical additives. The third was commercially availableFresh Step litter, a product of Clorox Corporation. Fresh Step is known to contain attapulgite clay and may contain fuller's earth, as well. Each of these three m~teri~l~
5 was tested in both untreated and treated versions. The treated m~teri~l~ contained 0.5%
by weight of the culture plcp~lion. The six s~mples were tested for pH both whenthe s~mples were gathered and after the gathered samples were aged over a time period ranging from æro days to six ~tldition~l days. The pH of a control sample of each m~teri~l, which was not used by the cats, was measured initially to detP.rmine a base 10 reading and was evaluated again after six days aging.
TABLE 6 -- pH OF PET Lll l~K OVER SEVEN DAY PERIOD
Treated Treated Treated Sample Day Sodium Sodium Scoop Scoop Fresh Fresh BentonitP Be.~lon;~ 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 8.5Day 2 - aged 8 8.5 8.5 8 8.5 15 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 ~lk~lin~ control m~ti~.ri~l, with pH 9. Fresh exposure to cat urine caused a drop in the pH of untreated sodium bentonit~ to either pH 8 or pH 8.5. With age, dhe s~mples showed very little change. In two cases the sample pH dropped slighdy. Buffering appeared to be effective and the pH st~bili7Pd in the range from 7-9. The treated sample of sodium bentonite showed relatively less pH drop and r~m~in~d relatively more stable, indic~ting 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 still lower 5 control pH of 7. It showed both increases and decreases in pH with both fresh and aged exposure to cat urine. Bnffenng appeared to be effective and pH remained in the range from 7-9 in all samples.
Both treated and untreated control s~mplPs of Fresh Step had an inte.rmediate control pH of 8.5. With fresh exposure to cat urine, both s~mrles of Fresh Step had 10 a stable pH that changed only slightly, if at all, from the control value. All s~mplP.s of all three pet litters m~int~inPd pH in the range from 7-9 throughout the tests, which est~hli~hed that the buLr~ g action of the smçctite clay is sufficient to m~int~in the pet litter in the desired pH range at least through the errecliv~ period of the culture.
The preÇe,t;nlial growth of urease negative bacteria inhibits the bacterial 15 conversion of urea to ~mmoni~ by urease positive bacteria from the environme.nt Ammonia is the major odor component of the urine clump. If the pH of the urine clump becomes acidic, urease positive bacteria can grow and will generate ammonia from urea with a consequent odor. The buffer and urease negative bacteria culture st~bili7es the urea for apploxi~ tely three extra days, to a total of about five days, until 20 urease positive bacteri~ eventually invade the urine clump and begin generation of ammonia and odor.
An improved culture and p,~aldlion me~od were devised in order to increase the finPnPcs of the culture preparation and to elimin~te grin~ing of the culture25 preparation. According to the procedures of FY~mplP. 1, thè urease negative cultures were grown in liquid me(li~lm, reconctit~tPd from dry form at 12.0% solids level and heat treated at 180F by holding for 45 minutPs Then the medi~lm was cooled to 90F
and was incubated with previously t~n~ferred urease negative cultures. The medium was incub~tpd until pH dropped to 5.2. At this stage, it was neutralized to pH 7.0 and 30 the culture was allowed to incubate further. The neutralization steps were continued until pH no longer dropped, indicating the depletion of nl~trient.C. At this stage 10 WO ~6/11570 PCT/US95/13004 pounds of sterile mixed 25% dextrose and 10% autoly_ed yeast extract solution was added for every 1000 pounds of liquid me~ m, and the incubation was further continued until pH dropped towards 5Ø This last step was introduced to furtherenh~nce cell growth. Then, the culture was cooled to 60F and neutrali7Pd to pH 7.0 S using a 50% solution of sodium hydroAide.
The culture thus prepared was added to granular silica at the ~l~rellcd rate of 25% weight~weight, with a range from 10 to 50%. The culture, added to silica, was dried at ambient lel)lpG~ c;. After the culture was dried, powdered carbonate salts, for example sodium bicarbonate, were added to the dried silica and culture at the p~Grelled rate of 20% by weight, with a range from 10 to 40%. The culture plus carbonate mix was uniformly bl~nded and was used to inoculate bentonite at the rate of 0.1 to 0.25% by weight, for use as animal litter.
The improved culture plep~Lion of this e~c~mple, prepared according to this new method, does not require ~rin(ling and worked çfficiçtltly. The following table 15 evaluates the perforrn~nce of this il~proved culture pl~Lion in comp~ri~on to the original culture p~cpa,~lion of F~mplP 1. The improved culture preparation is referred to in the table as "new culture preparation."
Tests were run using Dr. Elsey's brand scoopable litter, a 6 x 20 mesh sodium bentonitf from Black Hills Bçntonite Dosage was 0.2 percent or one level tablespoon 20 (0.6 ounces) in 18 pounds of litter. After seven days, both the control and the original forrn~ tion had a strong ammonia odor and foamed vigorously in the qualitative ammonia test of FY~mple 2. The improved culture had a mild, yeasty smell and no foam.
W O 96tll570 PC~rtUS95tl3004 Z o ,o ~
~E~
V~
O ~ ~ ' ' + + +
O ~ ~
¢ ~ ~
o O ¢
~Ye ~ ,S~aS
O ~ C ~ ~I
The foregoing is considered as illllctrative only of the principles of the invention. Fur~er, since llwllel~us modifications and ch~nges will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact formulation S and operation ~escrihe~i and accordingly all s~it~hle mo-lific~tions and equivalents may be regarded as falling within the scope of the invention as defined by the claims that follow.
Claims
1. A method of suppressing production of odor from animal wastes in pet litter, comprising:
applying to a pet litter an effective amount of a urease negative bacteria 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the pet litter 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 litter, the urease negative bacteria are mixed with granular silica.
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is applied in a culture preparation containing bacterial growth medium and bacterial growthby-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.
11. 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 applied in dry form.
16. The method of Claim 7, wherein before applying said preparation, the 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 silica.
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 silica.
21. The method of Claim 7, wherein said preparation is applied by spraying in a liquid 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 method 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 litter, by weight.
27. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selectedfrom urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus and non-specific bacillus 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 the 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 shermanii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, 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 lactobacillus bacteria selected from the group consisting of lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and mixtures thereof.
34. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific bacillus bacteria of compost and soil origin.
35. The method 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 litter.
36. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selectedfrom urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus, andnon-specific bacillus or mixtures thereof.
37. The method of Claim 7, 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.
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 acidilactici, pediococcus pentosaeceus, pediococcus cerevisiae, and mixtures thereof.
40. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises propionihacterinm selected from the group consisting of propionibacterium shermanii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, 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 lactobacillus bacteria selected from the group consisting of lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and mixtures thereof.
43. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific bacillus bacteria of compost and soil origin.
44. An odor retarding pet litter, comprising:
an absorbent composition; and a decomposition retarding urease negative bacteria combined with 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 litter of Claim 44, further comprising growth medium of culturing said urease negative bacteria.
46. The pet litter of Claim 45, further comprising growth by-products of culturing said urease negative bacteria.
47. The pet litter of Claim 45, further comprising granular silica carrying said urease negative bacteria.
48. The pet litter 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 litter of Claim 48, wherein said buffer means comprises a sodiumsmectite clay.
50. The pet litter 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 litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesa smectite clay.
52. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesa swelling sodium smectite clay.
53. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesbentonite.
54. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesgranular sodium bentonite.
55. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said growth medium and urease negative bacteria are dried, and further comprising granular silica carrying said dried growth medium and urease negative bacteria.
56. The pet litter of Claim 55, further comprising a carbonate salt.
57. The pet litter of Claim 56, wherein said carbonate salt comprises from 10 to 40 weight percent of said silica, growth medium, and urease negative bacteria.
58. The pet litter 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 litter 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.
applying to a pet litter an effective amount of a urease negative bacteria 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the pet litter 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 litter, the urease negative bacteria are mixed with granular silica.
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is applied in a culture preparation containing bacterial growth medium and bacterial growthby-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.
11. 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 applied in dry form.
16. The method of Claim 7, wherein before applying said preparation, the 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 silica.
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 silica.
21. The method of Claim 7, wherein said preparation is applied by spraying in a liquid 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 method 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 litter, by weight.
27. The method of Claim 1, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selectedfrom urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus and non-specific bacillus 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 the 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 shermanii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, 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 lactobacillus bacteria selected from the group consisting of lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and mixtures thereof.
34. The method of Claim 27, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific bacillus bacteria of compost and soil origin.
35. The method 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 litter.
36. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria is selectedfrom urease negative strains of the group consisting of group N streptococcus, group D streptococcus, pediococcus, propionibacterium, leuconostoc, lactobacillus, andnon-specific bacillus or mixtures thereof.
37. The method of Claim 7, 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.
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 acidilactici, pediococcus pentosaeceus, pediococcus cerevisiae, and mixtures thereof.
40. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises propionihacterinm selected from the group consisting of propionibacterium shermanii, propionibacterium freudenreichii, 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 lactobacillus bacteria selected from the group consisting of lactobacillus acidophilus, lactobacillus bulgaricus, and mixtures thereof.
43. The method of Claim 7, wherein said urease negative bacteria comprises non-specific bacillus bacteria of compost and soil origin.
44. An odor retarding pet litter, comprising:
an absorbent composition; and a decomposition retarding urease negative bacteria combined with 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 litter of Claim 44, further comprising growth medium of culturing said urease negative bacteria.
46. The pet litter of Claim 45, further comprising growth by-products of culturing said urease negative bacteria.
47. The pet litter of Claim 45, further comprising granular silica carrying said urease negative bacteria.
48. The pet litter 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 litter of Claim 48, wherein said buffer means comprises a sodiumsmectite clay.
50. The pet litter 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 litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesa smectite clay.
52. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesa swelling sodium smectite clay.
53. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesbentonite.
54. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said absorbent composition comprisesgranular sodium bentonite.
55. The pet litter of Claim 45, wherein said growth medium and urease negative bacteria are dried, and further comprising granular silica carrying said dried growth medium and urease negative bacteria.
56. The pet litter of Claim 55, further comprising a carbonate salt.
57. The pet litter of Claim 56, wherein said carbonate salt comprises from 10 to 40 weight percent of said silica, growth medium, and urease negative bacteria.
58. The pet litter 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 litter 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.
Applications Claiming Priority (5)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US08/324,896 US5507250A (en) | 1994-10-18 | 1994-10-18 | Odor inhibiting pet litter |
| US08/543,566 US5634431A (en) | 1994-10-18 | 1995-10-16 | Odor inhibiting pet litter |
| US08/324,896 | 1995-10-16 | ||
| US08/543,566 | 1995-10-16 | ||
| PCT/US1995/013004 WO1996011570A1 (en) | 1994-10-18 | 1995-10-17 | Odor inhibiting pet litter |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2203009A1 true CA2203009A1 (en) | 1996-04-25 |
Family
ID=29407621
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA 2203009 Abandoned CA2203009A1 (en) | 1994-10-18 | 1995-10-17 | Odor inhibiting pet litter |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CA (1) | CA2203009A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111003714A (en) * | 2019-12-31 | 2020-04-14 | 西北师范大学 | Modification method of attapulgite clay for cosmetics |
-
1995
- 1995-10-17 CA CA 2203009 patent/CA2203009A1/en not_active Abandoned
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111003714A (en) * | 2019-12-31 | 2020-04-14 | 西北师范大学 | Modification method of attapulgite clay for cosmetics |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US5634431A (en) | Odor inhibiting pet litter | |
| US5507250A (en) | Odor inhibiting pet litter | |
| EP2274415B1 (en) | Bacillus strains useful for animal odor control | |
| KR0122848B1 (en) | Animal dross absorbent and method | |
| CA2233406C (en) | Clumpable animal litter with improved odor control | |
| JP2854880B2 (en) | Deodorant composition | |
| US4034078A (en) | Product and method for controlling odors | |
| WO1995016769A1 (en) | Microorganism and deodorant containing cells thereof | |
| CA2203009A1 (en) | Odor inhibiting pet litter | |
| JP3441565B2 (en) | Fermentation promoter | |
| JPH07241169A (en) | Deodorizing agent | |
| Miller et al. | Substrate usage and odours in mushroom composting | |
| KR20200043694A (en) | Deodorizing bio-mat for rearing animal and method for manufacturing the same | |
| JP3122797B2 (en) | Manure odor generation suppressing or deodorizing agent and manure odor generation suppressing or deodorizing method | |
| US7426902B1 (en) | Sorbent and applications | |
| JPH10152386A (en) | Composting promoting agent composition | |
| JP2001112365A (en) | Floor litter for animal stall | |
| JP2745035B2 (en) | Livestock manure processing material | |
| JP4434459B2 (en) | Deodorization method for organic waste | |
| CN113016634B (en) | Method for preparing urethra-protecting cat litter by utilizing mixed fermentation of probiotics | |
| JPH0710216B2 (en) | Livestock feed additive | |
| RU2162633C2 (en) | Bactericidal additive for container fillers for domestic and laboratory animals | |
| JPH0571264B2 (en) | ||
| JP2022106626A (en) | Deodorization liquid and deodorization method | |
| JP2005102669A (en) | Material for treating organic waste and method for manufacturing the same |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| FZDE | Dead |