The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what is
necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe calls
for?". That has never been the question. There is no information that I
have found regarding canning combinations that do not fulfill the
ingredient list of a given recipe.

As I have stated, we would unquestionably can for the recommended time
if something was stated like "due to the density of soups it is
recommended ..... " or some other reason but I have not found, nor been
told this. Of course we could just can them for the longer time and be
done with it but for reasons moreso of efficiency we would much rather
can for less time. I agree with Bob in that the fuel the LP stove uses
to keep the canner canning (our stove is on its lowest setting when the
canner is running) is negligible but that doesnt negate the fact that it
is more, and moreso more time which means less production.

Its a very simple question with a very simple answer and doesnt demand
all of this speculation and applying things that were never part of the
original post. Your statement is a direct example of this, go back and
read the thread again, it was said numerous times that if the longer
time _is what is neccesary_ that is perfectly fine. However no one has
given any data on the necessary part.

Mark

Brian Mailman wrote:
I think the question is whether it's more cost-effective to *possibly*
use a bit more fuel or pay for a hospital stay.

B/

In ,
Mark & Shauna took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly:
The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what is
necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe calls
for?". That has never been the question. There is no information that
I have found regarding canning combinations that do not fulfill the
ingredient list of a given recipe.

As I have stated, we would unquestionably can for the recommended time
if something was stated like "due to the density of soups it is
recommended ..... " or some other reason but I have not found, nor
been told this. Of course we could just can them for the longer time
and be done with it but for reasons moreso of efficiency we would
much rather can for less time. I agree with Bob in that the fuel the
LP stove uses to keep the canner canning (our stove is on its lowest
setting when the canner is running) is negligible but that doesnt
negate the fact that it is more, and moreso more time which means
less production.

Its a very simple question with a very simple answer and doesnt demand
all of this speculation and applying things that were never part of
the original post. Your statement is a direct example of this, go
back and read the thread again, it was said numerous times that if
the longer time _is what is neccesary_ that is perfectly fine.
However no one has given any data on the necessary part.

Mark

Brian Mailman wrote:
I think the question is whether it's more cost-effective to
*possibly* use a bit more fuel or pay for a hospital stay.

B/

The reason none of us can give you a definitive answer is because we are not qualified to
do that. None of us are scientific experts with the degrees to back us up. Most of us
are just experienced home canners who rely on approved sources such as the USDA to provide
us with the proper methodology. I, for one, don't question when they tell me that it's
the correct way to do it. No, I'm not a mindless autonomaton (sp), but I figure they
tested the methodology and recipes and have come up with the safest methods and processing
times to can any particular product and who am I to question it? I don't have a
background in any field that would allow me to give an authoritative answer.


--
Marilyn
-----------
"They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose"

Mark & Shauna wrote:

The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what is
necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe calls
for?". That has never been the question. There is no information that I
have found regarding canning combinations that do not fulfill the
ingredient list of a given recipe.

Have you thought to try something more effective than asking a group of
lay people, say, like writing the authors who actually came up with the
times quoted and finding out why those times are recommended? Or ask
your local USDA rep? Or the folks at the folks at NFSD? Or do you wish
to continue this "nobody can provide information" bit?

If fuel/energy is at such a premium that you're apparently willing to
gamble, why not use *free* sunlight to dry the items that are dryable,
and can the items that have less time at less time?

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:
Mark & Shauna wrote:

The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what is
necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe calls
for?". That has never been the question. There is no information that I
have found regarding canning combinations that do not fulfill the
ingredient list of a given recipe.


Have you thought to try something more effective than asking a group of
lay people, say, like writing the authors who actually came up with the
times quoted and finding out why those times are recommended? Or ask
your local USDA rep? Or the folks at the folks at NFSD? Or do you wish
to continue this "nobody can provide information" bit?

If fuel/energy is at such a premium that you're apparently willing to
gamble, why not use *free* sunlight to dry the items that are dryable,
and can the items that have less time at less time?

B/

We posted here first wondering if it was just common knowledge among
"experienced home canners" to quote another reply. I figured it would be
far quicker than waiting for a mail back from the NCHFP or something.
The group has been a valuable source of information for us.
I never complained that "nobody can provide information" on this NG. If
you can site where I have I would appreciate it. What I was mereley
pointing out is that upon asking a question about canning times for
VEGETABLE soup, with a supplied list of vegetables to be in said soup, I
was informed about meat and poultry soups, freezing, canning corn (which
was actually my mistake), trips to the hospital and so on.
Your last paragraph again sums up my last reply to you. You havent even
a grasp of the thread. Have you read it? You state:

"and can the items that have less time at less time?"

There has _never_ been a question about trying to can a vegetable that
requires 75 minutes of canning time in less time. Never, this is
something you have concocted in your mind as you havent read, or misread
the thread, if you have even read it.
All of the vegetables in the soup can be canned in 50 minutes
individually. My question was, would canning this group of vegetables as
a soup for 60 minutes (when the longest required is 50) be ok? This
seems to be something you are unable to absorb so I will stop trying to
explain it to you.
As far as drying and the sun, yes, we do dry and we do use a solar
cooker, but one thing you do seem to know based on your last paragraph
is that solar canning is not an option.

Good day,
Mark

In ,
Mark & Shauna took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly:
Brian Mailman wrote:
Mark & Shauna wrote:

The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what
is necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe
calls for?". That has never been the question. There is no
information that I have found regarding canning combinations that
do not fulfill the ingredient list of a given recipe.


Have you thought to try something more effective than asking a group
of lay people, say, like writing the authors who actually came up
with the times quoted and finding out why those times are
recommended? Or ask your local USDA rep? Or the folks at the folks
at NFSD? Or do you wish to continue this "nobody can provide
information" bit?

If fuel/energy is at such a premium that you're apparently willing to
gamble, why not use *free* sunlight to dry the items that are
dryable, and can the items that have less time at less time?

B/

We posted here first wondering if it was just common knowledge among
"experienced home canners" to quote another reply. I figured it would
be far quicker than waiting for a mail back from the NCHFP or
something.
The group has been a valuable source of information for us.
I never complained that "nobody can provide information" on this NG.
If you can site where I have I would appreciate it. What I was mereley
pointing out is that upon asking a question about canning times for
VEGETABLE soup, with a supplied list of vegetables to be in said
soup, I was informed about meat and poultry soups, freezing, canning
corn (which was actually my mistake), trips to the hospital and so on.
Your last paragraph again sums up my last reply to you. You havent
even
a grasp of the thread. Have you read it? You state:

"and can the items that have less time at less time?"

There has _never_ been a question about trying to can a vegetable that
requires 75 minutes of canning time in less time. Never, this is
something you have concocted in your mind as you havent read, or
misread the thread, if you have even read it.
All of the vegetables in the soup can be canned in 50 minutes
individually. My question was, would canning this group of vegetables
as a soup for 60 minutes (when the longest required is 50) be ok? This
seems to be something you are unable to absorb so I will stop trying
to explain it to you.

And this is something everyone here has tried to get across to you, that we simply do NOT
have the definitive answer. The sources we use, the experts as it were, as saying that it
takes longer than that for soup. Why do you have to keep questioning it? IF you don't
like what it says, go ahead and do whatever you want. Can it for only 60 minutes if that
will make you quit going on and on and on about it. But you're reminding me of kids when
they keep pestering their parents with "Why?"

All the vegetable soup recipes in the Ball Blue Book for veggie soup that does not contain
meat have a processing time of 1 hour and 25 minutes at 10 pounds pressure. It's pretty
standard across the board. Seems like soups with beans in them take maybe 5 minutes
longer, but plain veggies, regardless of what they are, the recommendation is the
repeatedly mentioned 85 minutes for quarts in the BBB.

I hate to sound testy about this, but what it sounds like to me is that you really want
someone out there to come forward and say it's okay to do it for only 60 minutes, to
validate your opinion on it and I'm afraid that's just not going to happen unless you get
an answer from Dr. Nummer in that regard.



--
Marilyn
-----------
"They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose"

"Mark & Shauna"& Cyndi wrote:

snip

: Cyndi,
: I suppose it depends on the soup. In our experience soups can
sit on
: the stove all day and really dont get to awful mushy but it is
probably
: the type of soups we make. We often make large batches so we
can come in
: from work and get some quick food. They get heated many many
times
: before they are gone and often times it seems the last bowls
taste the
: best. These soups that we can will be cooked again when they
are used
: with additional ingredients and such.
: With regards to the freezer, again this is back to our
lifestyle. We
: live off grid (no utility power) and freezing is a very
impractical way
: to store food. While it would be nice to have a large chest
freezer
: chunking away on the electric meter in the basement we dont
have that
: option and our freezer in our fridge is what we rely on. It is
full of
: the things that need to be frozen or stuff from the garden that
wasnt
: enough to can or doesnt can well. For these reasons freezing is
not an
: option for us. We are far better served by canning and putting
it on a
: shelf where it doesnt cost us anything and will last for years.
:
: Thanks,
: Mark
: =========

Mark,

Yeah, I'm with you on the last bowl of soup is usually the
best... personally, I don't have a problem with the vegetables
getting softer as they go... but my Hubby and his side of the
family are real *texture* hounds... All veggies must be al
dente... seemingly, even in soup. I dunno. The softer the more
comforting to me... but if I'm going to take the time to make it
I try to make it where everyone will eat it.

Bummer about the expense and difficulty to freeze. I guess "off
the grid" didn't register in my mind when I first read it. palm
smacks side of head Yes, canning certainly makes a lot of
sense in your case.


Cyndi
Remove a "b" to reply

Mark & Shauna wrote:

I went to http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html after having
selcted "vegetable soups" and was shocked to see 75 minutes for soups?

We are harvesting the last of our garden and were planning a huge batch
of leeks, cabbage, carrots, squash, etc. into a large vegetable soup or
base. The 75 minute processing time seemed unreasonably long. Is this
what you all do?


Mark


Do have a recent Ball Blue Book? Look in the low acid foods chapter for a
recipe caled "Stew Vegetables". Forty minutes, and it since it doesn't
specify a jar size and the recipe makes 7 quarts (a typical canner load)
it's safe to say that's the processing time for quart jars.

If *you* determine that your recipe is close enough to this one, then 40
minutes is adequate and 60 gives you a significant safety margin.

Best regards,
Bob

Mark & Shauna wrote in :

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
"Rick & Cyndi" wrote in news:O3Oeb.477488
$Oz4.315571@rwcrnsc54:


"zxcvbob" & Mark
:
: Are you afraid you will overcook the soup? An extra 10 or
15 minutes
: in the pressure canner adds very little to the energy used
or the
: total time it takes to do a batch.
:
: Bob
:
:
: Wow, this seems to be a very elusive answer, heehee. No I
am not
: affraid at all of overcooking the soup. It could cook all day
and be
: fine. I am wondering for a multitude of reasons.
: First, we live off grid and are very energy concious so
wether it
: takes a little or a lot more fuel to can for longer the
bottom line is
: its more. What is the point of burning even a modest amount
more if it
: is not neccesary? If it is neccesary I have no problem with
it but its
: foolish if its not.
:
SNIP

: Mark
:
:
: I think you will have to write to Dr. Nummer if you want an
authoritative
: answer.
:
: I don't can things like soup until I am heating my house
anyway. Heat from
: the kitchen stove heats the house more efficiently than the
furnace, so no
: energy gets wasted. That may not entirely be true in your
case.
:
: While the canner is cooking, you can be doing other things (you
just can't
: go anywhere) so the time is not totally wasted either. But if
you are
: doing back-to-back canner loads, the extra processing time will
slow you down.
:
: Bob
: ==========

Hmmm, you've definitely found yourself in a pickle Mark. While I
would tend to think along your ideas (why can, time-wise, for
items that aren't in there...) I am NOT an expert nor do I play
one on TV. My first thought, if you did can the soups that long,
I would be concerned that the vegetables would be mushy (very
technical term). I freeze mine rather than can just because of
that "mushy" concern.

I dunno. Please keep us posted as to what you do and how they
turn out.

Cyndi





It's the freezer for my soups, too, and for the same reason and
another reason, too. My perception of canned soups containing meat
is that they smell like dog food.

Wayne

Well, I understand these are your soups but the thread was regarding
vegetable soup so the dog food factor really doesnt apply.
You would have to read my reply to cyndi about the freezer.

Thanks,
Mark




I did, Mark; however I also seem to recall someone mentioned added meat
regarding the long canning time.

As to vegetable only, I would still freeze over canning to resolve the
mushy factor.

Wayne

"Marilyn=A9" wrote:

And this is something everyone here has tried to get across to you, tha=
t we
simply do NOT have the definitive answer.

(snip)

Couldn't have said it better, thanks.

But you're reminding me of kids when they keep pestering their parents =
with "Why?"

Yeah. I've got this friend who, when she puts her mind to it, can argue
and nag whycantiwhycantiwhycanti until the cows come home and will
continue until she wears you out and you just give in that black is
white and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. I've tried to
stop it with, "Look, this is futile, because you're going to do what you
want, so let's just cut out the middle 2 hours and say I agree..."

I hate to sound testy about this, but what it sounds like to me is that=
you
really want someone out there to come forward and say it's okay to do =
it for
only 60 minutes, to validate your opinion on it...

Exactly so.... I'm "hearing" the same thing. =


B/

Marilyn,
The reason for this thread dragging on has nothing whatsoever to do
with me hoping to get an answer I want from my original post. The
original question has fallen from the topic long ago, shortly after the
first couple replies. The reason it keeps dragging on is due to the fact
that my original question about canning times has led (not by any action
of my own) to commentary on meat, corn, what time of year I should be
canning soups, that I shouldnt be canning soups in the first place and
opt for freezing, to commentary on solar cooking and drying, on and on.
Other than perhasp three or four replies in this thread NONE of them
pertain to canning time.
You can get testy all you want, my skin is extremely thick, feel free
to lay it on me if you choose. I could have gotten testy from the very
first reply about the times for soups being "but all of my soups have
meat or poultry in them", but I didnt, I treat it all as valuable
information. My answering replies was to state in defense WHY I would
rather can for less time if its possible, not arguing that I still want
to can for less time. Or WHY I am not interested in wasting fuel, or
that I am NOT willing or going to take shortcuts and wind up in the
hospital which was implied.
You see, this thread is lingering on and on because information which
is not at all pertinent to the initial question (canning when its cold,
why am I worried about wasting fuel, why dont I just freeze the stuff
rather than can it, the hospital, etc) keeps getting interjected rather
than just saying "I dont have anything to contribute as all of my soups
have meat in them" or "I dont have anything to contribute because I
freeze all my soups" etc. Those would have been, and are, perfectly
acceptable answers.
Please dont take this as me pressing the issue until I get the answer I
want. The only times I have reitterated the initial question was to
clarify my question being misread or misinterpretted as has specifically
been the case with Brian. He has restated things that I have never
implied and things that can not even be found in this thread. Yes, these
are pet peeves of mine but thats not why I am going on and on but I dont
like to be misquoted. Its all part of Usenet.

Good day,
Mark

Marilyn© wrote:
In ,
Mark & Shauna took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly:

Brian Mailman wrote:

Mark & Shauna wrote:


The hospital stay has nothing to do with it. The question is "what
is necessary". Not, "can we cheat and can for less than the recipe
calls for?". That has never been the question. There is no
information that I have found regarding canning combinations that
do not fulfill the ingredient list of a given recipe.


Have you thought to try something more effective than asking a group
of lay people, say, like writing the authors who actually came up
with the times quoted and finding out why those times are
recommended? Or ask your local USDA rep? Or the folks at the folks
at NFSD? Or do you wish to continue this "nobody can provide
information" bit?

If fuel/energy is at such a premium that you're apparently willing to
gamble, why not use *free* sunlight to dry the items that are
dryable, and can the items that have less time at less time?

B/

We posted here first wondering if it was just common knowledge among
"experienced home canners" to quote another reply. I figured it would
be far quicker than waiting for a mail back from the NCHFP or
something.
The group has been a valuable source of information for us.
I never complained that "nobody can provide information" on this NG.
If you can site where I have I would appreciate it. What I was mereley
pointing out is that upon asking a question about canning times for
VEGETABLE soup, with a supplied list of vegetables to be in said
soup, I was informed about meat and poultry soups, freezing, canning
corn (which was actually my mistake), trips to the hospital and so on.
Your last paragraph again sums up my last reply to you. You havent
even
a grasp of the thread. Have you read it? You state:

"and can the items that have less time at less time?"

There has _never_ been a question about trying to can a vegetable that
requires 75 minutes of canning time in less time. Never, this is
something you have concocted in your mind as you havent read, or
misread the thread, if you have even read it.
All of the vegetables in the soup can be canned in 50 minutes
individually. My question was, would canning this group of vegetables
as a soup for 60 minutes (when the longest required is 50) be ok? This
seems to be something you are unable to absorb so I will stop trying
to explain it to you.


And this is something everyone here has tried to get across to you, that we simply do NOT
have the definitive answer. The sources we use, the experts as it were, as saying that it
takes longer than that for soup. Why do you have to keep questioning it? IF you don't
like what it says, go ahead and do whatever you want. Can it for only 60 minutes if that
will make you quit going on and on and on about it. But you're reminding me of kids when
they keep pestering their parents with "Why?"

All the vegetable soup recipes in the Ball Blue Book for veggie soup that does not contain
meat have a processing time of 1 hour and 25 minutes at 10 pounds pressure. It's pretty
standard across the board. Seems like soups with beans in them take maybe 5 minutes
longer, but plain veggies, regardless of what they are, the recommendation is the
repeatedly mentioned 85 minutes for quarts in the BBB.

I hate to sound testy about this, but what it sounds like to me is that you really want
someone out there to come forward and say it's okay to do it for only 60 minutes, to
validate your opinion on it and I'm afraid that's just not going to happen unless you get
an answer from Dr. Nummer in that regard.

Bob, thank you very much for your reply. I dont have a recent ball blue
book but we ordered one today after reading your reply.

Hope brian and marilyn get this on there server, sheesh

Thanks,
Mark

zxcvbob wrote:
Mark & Shauna wrote:

I went to http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html after having
selcted "vegetable soups" and was shocked to see 75 minutes for soups?

We are harvesting the last of our garden and were planning a huge
batch of leeks, cabbage, carrots, squash, etc. into a large vegetable
soup or base. The 75 minute processing time seemed unreasonably long.
Is this what you all do?


Mark


Do have a recent Ball Blue Book? Look in the low acid foods chapter for
a recipe caled "Stew Vegetables". Forty minutes, and it since it
doesn't specify a jar size and the recipe makes 7 quarts (a typical
canner load) it's safe to say that's the processing time for quart jars.

If *you* determine that your recipe is close enough to this one, then 40
minutes is adequate and 60 gives you a significant safety margin.

Best regards,
Bob

Brian,
Rather than adding more non pertinant information to the thread why
dont you go back and try to solidify some of the statements you make
with actual information extracted from the thread.
This excercise may enlighten you as to where you misunderstood but
chose to post anyway which then required me to have to correct your
inaccurate statements over and over. It has nothing to do with getting
my way, I had not been looking for an answer long before you posted to
the thread. My replies were only to correct your incorrect posts.
Good thing your not a reporter cause your family would be going hungry.

On second thought, please dont, just let it die,
Mark

Brian Mailman wrote:
"Marilyn©" wrote:


And this is something everyone here has tried to get across to you, that we
simply do NOT have the definitive answer.


(snip)

Couldn't have said it better, thanks.


But you're reminding me of kids when they keep pestering their parents with "Why?"


Yeah. I've got this friend who, when she puts her mind to it, can argue
and nag whycantiwhycantiwhycanti until the cows come home and will
continue until she wears you out and you just give in that black is
white and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. I've tried to
stop it with, "Look, this is futile, because you're going to do what you
want, so let's just cut out the middle 2 hours and say I agree..."


I hate to sound testy about this, but what it sounds like to me is that you
really want someone out there to come forward and say it's okay to do it for
only 60 minutes, to validate your opinion on it...


Exactly so.... I'm "hearing" the same thing.

B/

I'll type in the recipe and post it tonite.

regards,
bob


Mark & Shauna wrote:

Bob, thank you very much for your reply. I dont have a recent ball blue
book but we ordered one today after reading your reply.

Hope brian and marilyn get this on there server, sheesh

Thanks,
Mark

zxcvbob wrote:

Mark & Shauna wrote:

I went to http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html after having
selcted "vegetable soups" and was shocked to see 75 minutes for soups?

We are harvesting the last of our garden and were planning a huge
batch of leeks, cabbage, carrots, squash, etc. into a large vegetable
soup or base. The 75 minute processing time seemed unreasonably long.
Is this what you all do?


Mark


Do have a recent Ball Blue Book? Look in the low acid foods chapter
for a recipe caled "Stew Vegetables". Forty minutes, and it since it
doesn't specify a jar size and the recipe makes 7 quarts (a typical
canner load) it's safe to say that's the processing time for quart jars.

If *you* determine that your recipe is close enough to this one, then
40 minutes is adequate and 60 gives you a significant safety margin.

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
I'll type in the recipe and post it tonite.

regards,
bob


You don't have one in your car? Let me help out.

Stew vegetables

6 cups sliced carrots
4 cups peas
4 cups cut green beans
3 cups peeled and cubed white potatoes
2 cups quartered onions
2 cups celery
2 cups chopped sweet red pepper
1/4 cup minced parsley
2 tablespoons NaCl
1 tablespoons pepper
3 quarts chicken or vegetable stock

Combine all ingredients in a large saucepot. Bring mixture to a boil;
reduce heat and simmer five minutes. Ladle hot vegetables and broth into
hot jars, leaving 1-inch headspace. Adjust two piece caps. Process 40
minutes at 10 pounds pressure in a stream pressure canner. Yield: about 7
quarts.

In ,
Mark & Shauna took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly:
Marilyn,
The reason for this thread dragging on has nothing whatsoever to do
with me hoping to get an answer I want from my original post. The
original question has fallen from the topic long ago, shortly after
the
first couple replies. The reason it keeps dragging on is due to the
fact
that my original question about canning times has led (not by any
action
of my own) to commentary on meat, corn, what time of year I should be
canning soups, that I shouldnt be canning soups in the first place and
opt for freezing, to commentary on solar cooking and drying, on and
on.
Other than perhasp three or four replies in this thread NONE of them
pertain to canning time.

Back, up Mark...do you even remember your original post? I do. Here, I'll repost it for
you and refresh your memory on what your original question was and the one that you keep
bringing up again and again and again and not being satisfied with any answers that anyone
has given you regarding canning time. And yes, there have been many responses about
canning time. You can even go google it to read the entire thread.
*************************
Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthli
nk.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news .atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.ea
rthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID:
From: Mark & Shauna
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120
Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.food.preserving
Subject: Why so long for soups?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 11
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:58:40 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.82.197.28
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1064879920 66.82.197.28 (Mon, 29 Sep 2003
16:58:40 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:58:40 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: sn-us rec.food.preserving:58198
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)

I went to http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html after having
selcted "vegetable soups" and was shocked to see 75 minutes for soups?

We are harvesting the last of our garden and were planning a huge batch
of leeks, cabbage, carrots, squash, etc. into a large vegetable soup or
base. The 75 minute processing time seemed unreasonably long. Is this
what you all do?


Mark

**********************************


You can get testy all you want, my skin is extremely thick, feel free
to lay it on me if you choose. I could have gotten testy from the very
first reply about the times for soups being "but all of my soups have
meat or poultry in them", but I didnt, I treat it all as valuable
information. My answering replies was to state in defense WHY I would
rather can for less time if its possible, not arguing that I still
want
to can for less time. Or WHY I am not interested in wasting fuel, or
that I am NOT willing or going to take shortcuts and wind up in the
hospital which was implied.

Sorry, but it still reads as if you want to can the soup for less time and that you just
don't want to can it for the time specified, that you're absolutely aghast that it would
take that long to can soup. To me, it was never an issue of saving fuel or whatever, but
that you were unbelieving that it actually takes that long to process soup and kept
pressing for that answer. Want me to go through and quote more of your posts? That's
really just a waste of bandwidth.

I'll state it once more, that you sounded like you really wanted people to say yes, fine,
you can can it for less time. Which none of us were about to do as we do not have the
authority or the credentials to do that.

You see, this thread is lingering on and on because information which
is not at all pertinent to the initial question (canning when its
cold,
why am I worried about wasting fuel, why dont I just freeze the stuff
rather than can it, the hospital, etc) keeps getting interjected
rather
than just saying "I dont have anything to contribute as all of my
soups
have meat in them" or "I dont have anything to contribute because I
freeze all my soups" etc. Those would have been, and are, perfectly
acceptable answers.

Yes, I do generally have meat in my soups, but I also can things like salsa and stewed
tomatoes and chili and turkey and spaghetti sauce and chicken broth, etc., etc., etc. and
I follow the processing times as given by the USDA or the NCHFP or in the Ball Blue Book
or in the book that came with my Mirro pressure canner. I don't go, "ah, gee, I really
don't want to have to have my canner running for as long as it says in the directions, I
really wish I could do it for less time." No, I just do it.

Please dont take this as me pressing the issue until I get the answer
I
want. The only times I have reitterated the initial question was to
clarify my question being misread or misinterpretted as has
specifically
been the case with Brian. He has restated things that I have never
implied and things that can not even be found in this thread. Yes,
these
are pet peeves of mine but thats not why I am going on and on but I
dont
like to be misquoted. Its all part of Usenet.

Go back and read the entire thread, Mark. I don't see Brian misquoting you anywhere. And
you have kept on repeating the original question. You never once said, "okay, the
approved sources say do process for such-and-such time, then I'd better follow suit."

People do go off on tangents. That's also part of Usenet. Always has been. Unmoderated
Usenet is anarchy in its finest form.


Good day,
Mark

And the same to you.

--
Marilyn
-----------
"They got a name for the winners in the world
I want a name when I lose"