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/