Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Preserving (rec.food.preserving) Devoted to the discussion of recipes, equipment, and techniques of food preservation. Techniques that should be discussed in this forum include canning, freezing, dehydration, pickling, smoking, salting, and distilling. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
Depending upon which combination of veggies I use to make soup (without
any meat, poultry) I pressure can for the longest timed veggie included. The 75 minutes isn't unrealistic depending upon the veggies, the thickness of the veggies and the thickness of the broth. Kacey 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 > -- Outgoing messages scanned with Norton AntiVirus 2003 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
In ,
Mark & Shauna > took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: > 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 Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or poultry. However, looking at the processing time for just various types of vegetables by themselves, not in soup or anything, many of them do take that long to process just on their own. So with a combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one with the longest processing time, which is why soup has such a long processing time. -- Marilyn ----------- "They got a name for the winners in the world I want a name when I lose" |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
MarilynŠ wrote:
> In , > Mark & Shauna > took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: > >>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 > > > Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or poultry. However, looking at > the processing time for just various types of vegetables by themselves, not in soup or > anything, many of them do take that long to process just on their own. So with a > combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one with the longest > processing time, which is why soup has such a long processing time. > Well I guess my question is, for instance, on this page: http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/...egetables.html There is a recipie for canning mixed vegetables. Not all of the individual vegetables are listed on the NCHFP page for individual canning but from what I can see there isnt a veggie in the list that individually would requrire more than 50 minutes to be canned on its own and yet the site calls for 90 minutes? Is this a density issue? My initial question refers to harvesting the last of the garden which in our case equates to leeks, cabbage, some carrots, okra, some crooknecks. None of which are enough to can a full batch on their own. Our thought was to make a soup base out of all these ingredients. If we used the longest canning time we wouldnt hit the 75-90 minutes many of these show. In our caution we thought we would ask as we would go with the longer time to be safe but we are always thinking of the $$ in the propane tank. Any input appreciated... Mark |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"Mark & Shauna" > wrote in message ... > MarilynŠ wrote: > > In , > > Mark & Shauna > took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: > > > >>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 > > > > > > Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or poultry. However, looking at > > the processing time for just various types of vegetables by themselves, not in soup or > > anything, many of them do take that long to process just on their own. So with a > > combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one with the longest > > processing time, which is why soup has such a long processing time. > > > > Well I guess my question is, for instance, on this page: > http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/...egetables.html > There is a recipie for canning mixed vegetables. Not all of the > individual vegetables are listed on the NCHFP page for individual > canning but from what I can see there isnt a veggie in the list that > individually would requrire more than 50 minutes to be canned on its own > and yet the site calls for 90 minutes? Is this a density issue? > I guess I don't understand your question. Or rather, I don't understand your statement that no individual veggie requires more than 50 minutes. Using the same site (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/corn_kernel.html), you can see that whole kernel corn, which is in the list of mixed veggies you referenced, required 85 minutes for processing. The mixed veggies says 90 minutes. That's only a 5 min difference. That could simply be a 'safety' addition or it could be to handle some other veggie (they say you can add other veggies). My best guess (please note I said 'guess') is that it is a density issue because the corn can fill in spaces from other veggies and 'hide' from the heat. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
SCUBApix wrote:
> "Mark & Shauna" > wrote in message ... > >>MarilynŠ wrote: >> >>>In , >>>Mark & Shauna > took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: >>> >>> >>>>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 >>> >>> >>>Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or poultry. >> > However, looking at > >>>the processing time for just various types of vegetables by themselves, >> > not in soup or > >>>anything, many of them do take that long to process just on their own. >> > So with a > >>>combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one with the >> > longest > >>>processing time, which is why soup has such a long processing time. >>> >> >>Well I guess my question is, for instance, on this page: >>http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/...egetables.html >>There is a recipie for canning mixed vegetables. Not all of the >>individual vegetables are listed on the NCHFP page for individual >>canning but from what I can see there isnt a veggie in the list that >>individually would requrire more than 50 minutes to be canned on its own >>and yet the site calls for 90 minutes? Is this a density issue? >> > > I guess I don't understand your question. Or rather, I don't understand your > statement that no individual veggie requires more than 50 minutes. Using the > same site (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/corn_kernel.html), you can > see that whole kernel corn, which is in the list of mixed veggies you > referenced, required 85 minutes for processing. The mixed veggies says 90 > minutes. That's only a 5 min difference. That could simply be a 'safety' > addition or it could be to handle some other veggie (they say you can add > other veggies). > > My best guess (please note I said 'guess') is that it is a density issue > because the corn can fill in spaces from other veggies and 'hide' from the > heat. > > I was speaking moreso for the list of veggies I presented in my original post, and then reposted yet again. My clarification was in an attempt to not get replies like "buy I always have meat". I said nothing of canning meat and infact gave the list of vegetables I had available from the final harvest of the garden, again in the original post. To clarify again, none of the veggies in MY list call for such times and I was merely asking that if your ingredients dont match that of the vegetable soup / stock recipes on the site is it ok to do as the one reply stated and use the longest time for the ingredient list. It would seem crazy to me to can for corn when there is no corn in the canner. There is no meat in the canner, there are no beans in the canner, etc.. The ingredients are listed. Mark |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
Mark & Shauna wrote:
> SCUBApix wrote: > >> "Mark & Shauna" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> MarilynŠ wrote: >>> >>>> In , Mark & Shauna > took a >>>> deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or >>>> poultry. However, looking at the processing time for just various >>>> types of vegetables by themselves, not in soup or anything, many >>>> of them do take that long to process just on their own. So with a >>>> combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one >>>> with the longest processing time, which is why soup has such a >>>> long processing time. >>>> >>> >>> Well I guess my question is, for instance, on this page: >>> http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/...egetables.html There is a >>> recipie for canning mixed vegetables. Not all of the individual >>> vegetables are listed on the NCHFP page for individual canning but >>> from what I can see there isnt a veggie in the list that >>> individually would requrire more than 50 minutes to be canned on its >>> own and yet the site calls for 90 minutes? Is this a density issue? >>> >>> >> >> I guess I don't understand your question. Or rather, I don't >> understand your statement that no individual veggie requires more than >> 50 minutes. Using the same site >> (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/corn_kernel.html), you can see >> that whole kernel corn, which is in the list of mixed veggies you >> referenced, required 85 minutes for processing. The mixed veggies says >> 90 minutes. That's only a 5 min difference. That could simply be a >> 'safety' addition or it could be to handle some other veggie (they say >> you can add other veggies). >> >> My best guess (please note I said 'guess') is that it is a density >> issue because the corn can fill in spaces from other veggies and >> 'hide' from the heat. >> > > I was speaking moreso for the list of veggies I presented in my original > post, and then reposted yet again. My clarification was in an attempt > to not get replies like "buy I always have meat". I said nothing of > canning meat and infact gave the list of vegetables I had available from > the final harvest of the garden, again in the original post. > > To clarify again, none of the veggies in MY list call for such times and > I was merely asking that if your ingredients dont match that of the > vegetable soup / stock recipes on the site is it ok to do as the one > reply stated and use the longest time for the ingredient list. It would > seem crazy to me to can for corn when there is no corn in the canner. > There is no meat in the canner, there are no beans in the canner, etc.. > The ingredients are listed. > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
zxcvbob wrote: > Mark & Shauna wrote: > >> SCUBApix wrote: >> >>> "Mark & Shauna" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>> MarilynŠ wrote: >>>> >>>>> In , Mark & Shauna > took a >>>>> deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yep, but then my soup always contains some form of meat or poultry. >>>>> However, looking at the processing time for just various >>>>> types of vegetables by themselves, not in soup or anything, many >>>>> of them do take that long to process just on their own. So with a >>>>> combination of different vegetables, you have to go for the one >>>>> with the longest processing time, which is why soup has such a >>>>> long processing time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well I guess my question is, for instance, on this page: >>>> http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/...egetables.html There is a >>>> recipie for canning mixed vegetables. Not all of the individual >>>> vegetables are listed on the NCHFP page for individual canning but >>>> from what I can see there isnt a veggie in the list that >>>> individually would requrire more than 50 minutes to be canned on its >>>> own and yet the site calls for 90 minutes? Is this a density issue? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I guess I don't understand your question. Or rather, I don't >>> understand your statement that no individual veggie requires more than >>> 50 minutes. Using the same site >>> (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/corn_kernel.html), you can see >>> that whole kernel corn, which is in the list of mixed veggies you >>> referenced, required 85 minutes for processing. The mixed veggies says >>> 90 minutes. That's only a 5 min difference. That could simply be a >>> 'safety' addition or it could be to handle some other veggie (they say >>> you can add other veggies). >>> >>> My best guess (please note I said 'guess') is that it is a density >>> issue because the corn can fill in spaces from other veggies and >>> 'hide' from the heat. >>> >> >> I was speaking moreso for the list of veggies I presented in my original >> post, and then reposted yet again. My clarification was in an attempt >> to not get replies like "buy I always have meat". I said nothing of >> canning meat and infact gave the list of vegetables I had available from >> the final harvest of the garden, again in the original post. >> >> To clarify again, none of the veggies in MY list call for such times and >> I was merely asking that if your ingredients dont match that of the >> vegetable soup / stock recipes on the site is it ok to do as the one >> reply stated and use the longest time for the ingredient list. It >> would seem crazy to me to can for corn when there is no corn in the >> canner. There is no meat in the canner, there are no beans in the >> canner, etc.. The ingredients are listed. >> >> 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. Second, if we can for 75, 80, or 90 minutes based on some recipes with ingredients we dont have we are wasting anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes per canner load(based on a 60 minute time for the ingredients we DO have). This equates to anywhere from 1 to 3 canner loads that are lost over the course of a days canning. If we can at 90 minutes thats 6 hours of canning time for four loads. Coupled with the preparing, packing, and so on thats a good day for us. However if we can for 60 minutes instead this 4 loads now become only 4 hours for the same 4 batches plus preparing. This would mean we could probably turn out one or two more batches in the same days work. Maybe everyone else doesnt mind the extra 2 hours but I would rather turn that 2 hours into another 7 to 14 quarts out of the canner rather than some wasted fuel and time. The very little time added to a batch is true for a single batch but in a days canning 15-30 minutes of unnecessary canning time can equate to 2 or more additional loads. If it is necessary thats fine but so far it isnt sounding like it is. Mark |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
Mark & Shauna wrote:
> > zxcvbob wrote: >> >> 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. > Second, if we can for 75, 80, or 90 minutes based on some recipes > with ingredients we dont have we are wasting anywhere from 15 to 30 > minutes per canner load(based on a 60 minute time for the ingredients we > DO have). This equates to anywhere from 1 to 3 canner loads that are > lost over the course of a days canning. If we can at 90 minutes thats 6 > hours of canning time for four loads. Coupled with the preparing, > packing, and so on thats a good day for us. However if we can for 60 > minutes instead this 4 loads now become only 4 hours for the same 4 > batches plus preparing. This would mean we could probably turn out one > or two more batches in the same days work. Maybe everyone else doesnt > mind the extra 2 hours but I would rather turn that 2 hours into another > 7 to 14 quarts out of the canner rather than some wasted fuel and time. > The very little time added to a batch is true for a single batch but in > a days canning 15-30 minutes of unnecessary canning time can equate to 2 > or more additional loads. > If it is necessary thats fine but so far it isnt sounding like it is. > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
zxcvbob wrote:
> Mark & Shauna wrote: > >> >> zxcvbob wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >> Second, if we can for 75, 80, or 90 minutes based on some recipes >> with ingredients we dont have we are wasting anywhere from 15 to 30 >> minutes per canner load(based on a 60 minute time for the ingredients >> we DO have). This equates to anywhere from 1 to 3 canner loads that >> are lost over the course of a days canning. If we can at 90 minutes >> thats 6 hours of canning time for four loads. Coupled with the >> preparing, packing, and so on thats a good day for us. However if we >> can for 60 minutes instead this 4 loads now become only 4 hours for >> the same 4 batches plus preparing. This would mean we could probably >> turn out one or two more batches in the same days work. Maybe >> everyone else doesnt mind the extra 2 hours but I would rather turn >> that 2 hours into another 7 to 14 quarts out of the canner rather than >> some wasted fuel and time. The very little time added to a batch is >> true for a single batch but in a days canning 15-30 minutes of >> unnecessary canning time can equate to 2 or more additional loads. >> If it is necessary thats fine but so far it isnt sounding like it is. >> >> 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 > We are on the edge of needing to heat the house (fall) and the garden is finishing with a frost coming so wether we need the heat in the house or not the vegetables need to come out of the garden and get canned. We dont have a cellar completed yet so other than storing in the fridge for a bit they will have to be canned wether it is 30 degrees outside or 90. In any cases possible we hold our canning (in the fall) for cool/cold rainy/cloudy days. However, we have a weatherstation in the house and even on a full day of canning it only equates to a few degrees but I agree with you, its heat and it is waste heat so it is surely better to do it on a day when you need the heat rather than opening windows because the house is too hot. We canned for about 12 hours yesterday in the cloudy drizzle for this very reason. While the canner is cooking we _are_ doing other things. Preparing the next load. When we setup to can for a day there is very little wasted time where we sit waiting for the canner. We have it setup so as soon as the canner finishes, we pack, reload while the canner is still good and warm, and do another load. This process continues until we collapse or run out of food to can. Two canning books we have that are a little bit old state the longest ingredient method and the one reply here on the group said it as well. The books being older was why we thought we would bounce it off everyone here. I will mail Dr. Nummer to see what comes back and keep you posted. Mark |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
Rick & Cyndi wrote: > "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 > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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" |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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" |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"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> |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 MarilynŠ 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. > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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: > "MarilynŠ" 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/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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 >> > |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
"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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
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" |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
MarilynŠ wrote:
[snip] > > 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. ************************* [snip] > > 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. > I took the original question to mean, "I really don't want to process it that long, am I even looking at the right recipe?" That's why I first asked why the processing time makes any difference; then I looked for some alternate recipes. The recipe referenced at nchfp is designed to be used with any combination of meat and vegetables. It will work just fine for vegetable soups, because the vegetables will be so overcooked after the first 30 or 40 minutes, the rest of the processing won't really affect their texture much. Besides, I like for the vegetables to be cooked to death in soups. Best regards, Bob |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
Folks, can we give this thread a rest now?
It has wandered far afield from the OPs original questions and is beginning to sound like a rec.food.cooking thread from all the snapping at each other that's going on. ......Alan. Post no bills |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
MarilynŠ wrote:
> 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, _Not true_ and was never stated by me, you may have taken it that way, but you took it wrong, look at bobs last reply to the thread and you can see how you should have taken it. That said, I dont hold it against you in any way. Its a defect of the medium in which we are communicating that points are missed. > 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. What if your ingredients dont match that of any printed recipe? What if You only have three of the 10 ingredients to can? Do you throw them in the trash because you cant find a recipe to put ONLY these few ingredients to use? Here is an exercise for you using the recipe in question. (The recipe at: http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html ) Lets use the seafood example, It is called out at 100 minutes canning time. Now, remove the seafood and trade it for meat or poultry and you only have to can it for 75 minutes. What if you remove the meat? Then you are left with vegetables. Here is an interesting observation, corn, which is a vegetable, could be in that soup (it doesnt exclude any vegetables) which is canned at 75 minutes and yet its stated on the site that corn requires 85 minutes individually. But lets leave that aside. Now we have a soup with meat and ANY vegetable in it which is canned for 75 minutes. What if we take the meat out? What if we take beans out, what if we take pumpkin, winter squash, greens, spinach (a whopping 90 minutes but it can be in this recipe at 75 minutes), pepper, potatoes, beets, take them all out. Then what is the time? I realize this is not a question you choose to, or can answer, the point you cant seem to grasp is that that is FINE, dont answer it. You can read the last few replies from zxcvbob to see what the answer could be. There is no one here asking you to sign your name to an answer to which you can later be held accountable. I understand fully you were trying to help and I appreciate that completely. I admit fully after reading zxcvbob's last reply that I should have worded the question: " I am only canning these 5 vegetables in a soup and can only find xyz recipe which calls out vegetables with much longer canning times, does anyone know of a recipe that more closely matches my ingredients? " Hind sight is always 20/20 > You never once said, "okay, the > approved sources say do process for such-and-such time, then I'd better follow suit." I never once said this because "approved sources" dont call out a processing time for the ingredients I mentioned alone, which, uh, is why I asked the question in the first place? While I dont expect to find a recipe for my specific ingredients every time, I am logical enough to see, as bob stated in his reply, that the reason you can include ANY vegetable in the recipe quoted above is because it covers ALL, even the longest, vegetables. This would inhearantly mean, through the process of deduction, that if you took out the longest vegetables the time would shorten, take out the second shortest and the time would shorten more, this process would continue until you reach the single ingredient with the shortest processing time. While you may be fine with just saying "ahh, what the hell, I will just can it for an hour and a half to be safe because thats what the recipe with corn calls for" I choose to say, "Hmmm, corn takes a long time to can, if the corn isnt in there it SURELY must take less time?". And low an behold zxcvbob quotes a recipe with no corn, no meat or poultry, no seafood, and WOW, what a shocker, its got a 40 minute processing time!!!!! Jeeze, what a surprise. Can you believe it? I am beside myself!!! Who woulda thunk it?!>!? Now the recipe doesnt have cabbage or okra in it, which are in my soup, the recipe fullfills the answer to the question. Okra is only a 40 minute processing time (if left whole), and cabbage is canned in soups in many recipes for 50 minutes and under. While it may not "sit well" with you, this all means that you can safely and in good practice _think outside the box_ at times, and think. We can not expect the blue book, NCHFP, etc. to come up with recipe's for every possible combination. If you choose not to think outside the box, as I have stated over and over, that is COMPLETELY fine. Simply know that "I" expected nothing from you, if you had something to contribute that pertained to the topic that I am completely appreciative, if you have other information I will accept it as valuable information, but I am still looking for the answer to a question that had not been answered but now has. It was just a long road. Mark |
|
|||
|
|||
Why so long for soups?
In ,
Mark & Shauna > took a deep breath, sighed and spoke thusly: > MarilynŠ wrote: > >> 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, > > _Not true_ and was never stated by me, you may have taken it that > way, > but you took it wrong, look at bobs last reply to the thread and you > can > see how you should have taken it. That said, I dont hold it against > you > in any way. Its a defect of the medium in which we are communicating > that points are missed. This is is the way it sounded to me. I can't read anymore than what's printed here. > >> 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. > > What if your ingredients dont match that of any printed recipe? What > if > You only have three of the 10 ingredients to can? Do you throw them in > the trash because you cant find a recipe to put ONLY these few > ingredients to use? If they don't match exactly what I want, then I still go ahead and use that recipe, as long as I'm not putting things into it that are unusual, such as vegetables that may not have processing times listed anywhere. Sometimes you do have to improvise. I would not throw them in the trash. But I would still go with the longest processing time. > Here is an exercise for you using the recipe in question. (The recipe > at: http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/how/can_04/soups.html ) > > Lets use the seafood example, It is called out at 100 minutes canning > time. Now, remove the seafood and trade it for meat or poultry and you > only have to can it for 75 minutes. What if you remove the meat? Then > you are left with vegetables. Here is an interesting observation, > corn, > which is a vegetable, could be in that soup (it doesnt exclude any > vegetables) which is canned at 75 minutes and yet its stated on the > site > that corn requires 85 minutes individually. But lets leave that aside. > Now we have a soup with meat and ANY vegetable in it which is canned > for 75 minutes. What if we take the meat out? What if we take beans > out, > what if we take pumpkin, winter squash, greens, spinach (a whopping 90 > minutes but it can be in this recipe at 75 minutes), pepper, potatoes, > beets, take them all out. Then what is the time? I would still go with the longest processing time. > I realize this is not a question you choose to, or can answer, the > point > you cant seem to grasp is that that is FINE, dont answer it. You can > read the last few replies from zxcvbob to see what the answer could > be. > There is no one here asking you to sign your name to an answer to > which > you can later be held accountable. I understand fully you were trying > to > help and I appreciate that completely. > > I admit fully after reading zxcvbob's last reply that I should have > worded the question: > " I am only canning these 5 vegetables in a soup and can only find xyz > recipe which calls out vegetables with much longer canning times, does > anyone know of a recipe that more closely matches my ingredients? " > > Hind sight is always 20/20 That's right. If you had worded it that way, you would have gotten different responses. >> You never once said, "okay, the >> approved sources say do process for such-and-such time, then I'd >> better follow suit." > > I never once said this because "approved sources" dont call out a > processing time for the ingredients I mentioned alone, which, uh, is > why > I asked the question in the first place? While I dont expect to find a > recipe for my specific ingredients every time, I am logical enough to > see, as bob stated in his reply, that the reason you can include ANY > vegetable in the recipe quoted above is because it covers ALL, even > the > longest, vegetables. This would inhearantly mean, through the process > of > deduction, that if you took out the longest vegetables the time would > shorten, take out the second shortest and the time would shorten more, > this process would continue until you reach the single ingredient with > the shortest processing time. While you may be fine with just saying > "ahh, what the hell, I will just can it for an hour and a half to be > safe because thats what the recipe with corn calls for" I choose to > say, "Hmmm, corn takes a long time to can, if the corn isnt in there > it > SURELY must take less time?". And low an behold zxcvbob quotes a > recipe > with no corn, no meat or poultry, no seafood, and WOW, what a shocker, > its got a 40 minute processing time!!!!! Jeeze, what a surprise. Can > you > believe it? I am beside myself!!! Who woulda thunk it?!>!? > Now the recipe doesnt have cabbage or okra in it, which are in my > soup, > the recipe fullfills the answer to the question. Okra is only a 40 > minute processing time (if left whole), and cabbage is canned in soups > in many recipes for 50 minutes and under. > > > While it may not "sit well" with you, this all means that you can > safely > and in good practice _think outside the box_ at times, and think. We > can > not expect the blue book, NCHFP, etc. to come up with recipe's for > every > possible combination. If you choose not to think outside the box, as I > have stated over and over, that is COMPLETELY fine. Simply know that > "I" > expected nothing from you, if you had something to contribute that > pertained to the topic that I am completely appreciative, if you have > other information I will accept it as valuable information, but I am > still looking for the answer to a question that had not been answered > but now has. It was just a long road. > > Mark -- Marilyn ----------- "They got a name for the winners in the world I want a name when I lose" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Soups On! 3-12-11 | General Cooking | |||
Soups | General Cooking | |||
I tried the new V8 Soups | General Cooking | |||
Soups On!!!! | General Cooking | |||
Can soups without MSG? | Vegan |