Talk:Home canning

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Bottling?

I've never heard anyone refer to home canning as "bottling". To me, "bottling" means something completely different. If this is a regional or archaic usage, it should be labeled as such. --Chapka (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been canning all my life, and refer to it as 'bottling' all the time... Nothingofwater (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...looking into it a bit, it appears that Europeans always refer to "bottling" and have never heard of "canning". Here on the east coast of the U.S. I've always heard "canning" and never "bottling," which to me is the process I use to package beer or wine. Canadians seem to use both terms interchangeably.--Chapka (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I would say that "canning" is a regional (ie USA) usage and i've been doing this since the war210.23.130.14 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbish (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure cooker nonsense

In the North America section we find the following statement:

“

Ordinary pressure cookers are not recommended for canning, as their smaller size and the reduced thickness of the cooker wall will not allow for the correct building up and reducing time of pressure, which is factored into the overall processing time and therefore will not destroy all the harmful microorganisms.

”

The given source is National Center for Home Food Preservation, Burning Issue: Canning in Pressure Cookers.

This statement is patent nonsense, regardless of the apparent impeccability of the source. It violates the known laws of physics. All that is needed is to put more water into a regular pressure cooker to increase the thermal mass and thus lengthen the heating and cooling times. Most regular pressure cookers are used with 5-10 mm of water in the bottom, and even then, they will cook for well over half an hour at medium heat. The heat source can also be maintained for a few more minutes to simulate the behavior of a large, thick-walled canning pressure cooker. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although you state the statement is patent nonsense, it is nonetheless true. Although it would be possible to do as you suggest, such testing has not been done, and until it were done, the safety and efficacy of the change you suggest would not be proven. The testing has been done only for certain configurations, not for the configuration you suggest. Also, the specific heats of glass and metal are not the same as water. Also, the rate of heating is faster for a light walled pressure cooker than for a heavy walled pressure canner, such that the risk of glass breakage/cracking is also higher in a pressure cooker. It is best to stick to the recommendations, if one doesn't wish to become part and parcel to an experiment with potentially fatal outcomes. I personally follow the guidelines exactly. YMMV. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: The important difference to note between a regular pressure cooker for cooking, and a CANNER or CANNING pressure cooker, is that the one used for cooking usually has no guage, and only allows 5 PSI to build up in the cooker, therefore it's only for cooking under pressure. Whereas a CANNING pressure cooker can be set to build up to a maximum of 15 PSI, with different steam vent weights, is usually used at 10 PSI,say for meats and low acid vegetables, is monitored constantly by watching the guage and adjusting the temperature to keep the pressure at the desired PSI. I've been successfully cooking and canning with both pieces of equipment, according to their instruction manuals for over 30 years. See Mirro Pressure Cooker, Presto Pressure Canner, All American Pressure Cooker and Canner. Debbish (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Debbish[reply]

Welol, most of the "safety" statements, the way they are provided here with no to little context, work mostly as anti-preservation FUD. The article is full of blanket statements that are as correct in some cases as they are flatly wrong in other cases. The one about "not using pressure cookers" is only one of these context-less statements. 10+ PSI pressure cookers are commonly available, so the correct statement should address the pressure/temperature/time aspect, not the naming of products used to achieve them.

The whole safety-related part of the article would warrant a complete rewrite to add context and nuance to it .. which I do not feel like digging the sources for to then only need to fight the "FDA followers" guaranteed to show up. Anyway, for those interested shall this comment help convey the need to no take the info provided at face value. 185.5.70.198 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]