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.
>
>
>