'Off the cuff' I'm thinking it should be 75 min @ 10 psi for pts, 90 min @ 10 psi for qts on account of the meat.

This post was edited by sidhartha0209 on Tue, Oct 22, 13 at 13:11

The process timing is wrong, the headspace incorrect, the canner operating procedure off the wall....

Run. Don't use the suggestions from the site, please stick to the Blue Book or NCHFP tested recipes for chili with meat.

Which I assume you knew already :) As far as pointing out the safety errors, you could try if there is a space for comments, but do not be surprised if the poster isn't open to suggestion. Way too often, the response you may get is along the lines of 'I haven't made anyone sick yet' from someone who treats canning so casually as to not even know how to run the canner.

One service your commenting might provide is to warn a reader who doesn't recognize the safety issues this isn't safe canning....it may dissuade them from blindly trusting and using the recipe.

Sounds like they were trying to combine BWBing (but not enough water over the jars, not long enough processing) with PCing.

You could post the recipe here for review if you like it fresh, but definitely can IAW tested recipe. NCHFP has pints for 75 min, no tested time for quarts. Ball Complete has 90 min for quarts BUT it has no beans.

Here is a link that might be useful: Chili con Carne

If you really want to reply to him - and most just get defensive no matter how you word it - I'd start out slow by addressing only 1 of the many things wrong with his recommendations.

I'd probably ask why so much water in the PC when the normal is 3 inches only (even the canner manuals say that) since when pressure canning the jars shouldn't be submerged in water as they are in a BWB.

If he seems interested in more info then address the time issue and then the leaving them sitting in the canner issue as they are the most important.

Either way, as you wisely realized, it isn't anything that should be followed.

Dave

Folks, he may also be using a pressure cooker and not a canner. This was all so wrong, I needed advise before responding. I am sure one response will be "....for years, and hasn't killed any yet." Thanks everyone and I will try to work it carefully by complimenting on what looks like a very good recipe I want to try, and go from there.

I'd probably ask why so much water in the PC when the normal is 3 inches only (even the canner manuals say that) since when pressure canning the jars shouldn't be submerged in water as they are in a BWB.

I agree this wasn't necessary to submerge the jars for pressure canning, however the liquid will still reach the saturation temp of the coinciding pressure. Besides a greatly increased cooling down time, not sure about any danger otherwise, as in possibly blowing the relief valve or even rupturing the vessel.

This post was edited by sidhartha0209 on Tue, Oct 22, 13 at 18:17

Sounds as thought it was a cooker, not a canner, which is not safe to use for food preserving in jars.
Then, it does matter if the water is that high, as you want to measure steam pressure. Too much water, it has been determined will not allow for enough steam.

Then, is sounds to me that they may have made up their own recipe. Again, not something that is recommended.

I am sure one response will be "....for years, and hasn't killed any yet."

Unfortunately I'm sure you are right. And that is their choice, their risk to take. All any of us can do is try to share the info. What's the old adage? You can lead a horse to water but.... :)

not sure about any danger otherwise,

More volume of water = less volume of steam in a container = lower temperature processing on the submerged jars.

In a contained and pressurized environment like a pressure canner or an autoclave steam temps continue to rise well beyond the 212 degrees of the water temp to 240-260 degrees or more depending on the nature of the container.

Dave

Thanks Dave. I was hoping you saw this post. It sure makes me more aware of preserving my harvest with a lot of confidence.

In a contained and pressurized environment like a pressure canner or an autoclave steam temps continue to rise well beyond the 212 degrees of the water temp to 240-260 degrees or more depending on the nature of the container.

Steam and water temp will always be the same in a pressure cooker; at 10 psig steam and water temp will be 239F; at 15 psig steam and water temp will be 250F.

[at sea level of course]

This post was edited by sidhartha0209 on Wed, Oct 23, 13 at 7:01

I agree with Sidhartha on the temperature issue.

Another thing that I read comments about::: You can use a pressure cooker to can small amounts of small jars JUST LIKE pressure canner. I just fount out that, for example, PRESTO cookers (6 qrt +) use weight system, creating 15 psi pressure . That works just like a canner. The difference is just in volume. It is not just convenient and practical to use it. BUT IT CAN BE DONE.

It must have a rack and be large enough to hold 4 quart jars to be able to can in it. Explained here:

Here is a link that might be useful: Pressure cookers vs canners

Wrong, Seysonn. The time it takes to heat, come to pressure, and to cool are figured into the processing times. Those times are voided in the smaller cookers where they both heat and cool quickly - you'd have to guess at how many minutes under pressure to add so your product wouldn't be underprocessed, unsafe. Most of us prefer not to guess.

YOU can argue as much as you like. You are entitled to it.

In principle a pressure cooker (like an 8 qrt, pressto,) that has a weight system(15 psi) is but A MINI CANNER.

You can put a rack at the bottom to prevent the jars from touching the bottom of cooker. I have one that I use with BWB. I buy them from Asian stores. They com in different sizes.

You DON'T GOT TO use qrt size jars. You don't have to have as many jars. Just use what it can accommodate.
I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IT IS NOT VERY CONVENIENT BUT IT CAN BE USED AND DONE. A Mercedes Benz is better than Ford Escort. Sure ! But they both get you from point A to point B.

USDA " does not recommend" BUT does not give a logical reason as WHY? Other than saying it has to have room for 4 quart size jars. lol. Then what is the meaning of "recommend" ?
@ mrz8 ..
Timing is irellevant to the size of canner. You count the time from when it starts hissing. You provide enough heat, thereafter, to compensates for the heat loss due to cooling by convection and absorption by the initially cooler contents.

preheating and cooling times do not enter the equation of the required timing. ONLY the time in the set pressure/temperature counts. First of all, preheating time depends on the power of the heat source , the amount the contents (number of the jars, size of the jars). That is why you time from when the required pressure has reached. The cooling time has also variable : the contents(water + jars) ;; ambient temperature ;; surface area of the unit.

EVEN ASSUMING cooling time was counted in, I can show you that the difference is not potentially different. They are both cylindrical in shape, made of aluminum. What make a difference is the VOLUME to SURFACE ratio. I do not have the dimensions in front of me to calculate and show the difference.

I'm not sure why you don't see logic in the link ajsmama provided for you. We do understand that the quart sizes mentioned are the test size, we are not committed to canning in them.

Timing is relevant to the size of the canner.

I'm not trying to convince you, only pointing out the error in your statement so that months from now, when someone new to canning may be reading this thread, they don't see your statement, nothing following, and assume its true. I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to clarify for someone trying to learn safe canning methods, correct wrong information for them, with no expectations of you benefitting from it.

Morz 8

You did not clarify anything to me. You just made A statement.
USDA, recommend BIG pressure canner. WITHOUT a principal reason for it, other than it has to be able to accommodate 4 quart size jars.
AND (I just opened that page and read more" They say they do not recommend smaller canners BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONLY DONE THEIR RESEARCH IN 16 QRT AND BIGGER CANNER. That is funny. Not very scientific either.

Then the writer talks about heat transfer issue without having done any research. If they have not used a modern pressure cooker, how can they talks about heat transfer and the end result ?
I am sure if somebody come up with a 40 Qrt canner , again they will argue against it. YOU KNOW WHY? because they don't want to get out of their comfort zone and do more real research.
FINAL ANALYSIS:
Their" not recommendation" is without a scientific foundation and without any data to support it OTHER THAN SAYING THAT WE HAVE ONLY WORKED WITH 16 QRT AND LARGER ( 23 qrt?)

The size of canner is just for practicality and convenience. Because with an 8 quart canner you cannot accomplish much but does not made the principles( pressure, temperature, time) invalid.
It is so fundamentally simple. Bigger size of canner can handle bigger volume ; smaller canner can only handle smaller volume.

ONE MORE THING:

Right now "FAGOR" is marketing an 8 qrt and 10 qrt as PRESSURE COOKER AND CANNER. And I am sure there are others. Do you thing those people are crazy or want to take a slim chance to be sued.

I lost the long reply I had prepared just before Submitting when my laptop rebooted. So I'll just summarize:

USDA tested some pressure cookers for canning decades ago but said (see the link) that there were too many different sizes (and too many foods) to do much testing. They did find that adding 10 minutes to the processing times then published (which may have changed as more testing was done using the 16 qt size) resulted in underprocessed food. It's not that they're being "unscientific", it's a matter of funding.

A good scientist will define the limits of the experiment and explain these in the conclusion, so that the reader does not extrapolate the findings to a case in which it may not apply. That is what the USDA is saying when it says not to use their processing times in a vessel that can't fit 4 qt jars.

All-American has a variety of sizes, fro 10qt to 41 qt, and all are approved for use with the USDA processes, except that the 10 and 15qt are not to be used for fish due to the long processing times and the extra water required for that, similar to the situation the OP gave when the water was over the tops of the jars (though perhaps not quite that extreme).

If Fagor has done the heat penetration studies and provides processing times for canning different foods in their 8-qt, then by all means use them - they should be longer than the USDA processing times.

If they have not, and you want to conduct the studies and subject them to peer review, then publish for home canning use, go ahead. I'm sure USDA will be glad not to have to fund the study. As a taxpayer, I thank you.

From the OP chili directions:
Fill pressure cooker with water 1/2 inch above lids.

From the NCHFP 'Canning in Pressure Cookers':
Pressure cookers have less metal, are smaller in diameter, and will use less water than pressure canners. The result is that the time it takes a canner to come up to processing pressure (that is, the come-up time) and the time it takes the canner to cool naturally down to 0 pounds pressure at the end of the process (known as the cool-down time) will be less than for the standard pressure canner. The come-up and cool-down times are part of the total processing heat that was used to establish USDA process times for low-acid foods.

As far as processing temperature is concerned the excess water is not a problem, and, theoretically, the excess water could also bring the process time of the cooker in line with the canner by increasing come-up and cool-down times.

Of course this is not tested and approved but it does stand to reason.

As far as a rack in the bottom goes, I've used jar rings in the bottom of pans to accomplish a BWB. no big deal.

I reiterate my first comment, because of the meat in the chili the process time should be 75 min @ 10 psi for pts, 90 min for qts. In reality, though not tested and approved, the process time may actually be the only thing wrong with the recipe,

Fish requires extra water b/c of the longer processing time - you don't want to run the canner dry. I don't have any idea how much water you'd put in a 6qt or 8qt PC to process as many pints as the pot would hold - if you filled it with jars it might not be enough water and you'd run it dry, if you put 1 pint in (which IMHO would be a waste of energy) you might be able to put enough water in a 6qt pot not to have it run dry in the 100+ minutes you'd need to process it, but the value of the "+" is what's in question - 10 minutes for most foods (I'm assuming vegetables) wasn't determined to be enough, so we're talking over 2 hours of processing in this particular example.

Until someone conducts a scientific study to determine the proper processing time for various foods in all the various size vessels, we're just speculating - which could be dangerous.

I don't have any idea how much water you'd put in a 6qt or 8qt PC to process as many pints as the pot would hold - if you filled it with jars it might not be enough water and you'd run it dry...

That's a valid point. Do 'cookers' use more water than 'canners'?

Cookers tend to use less, b/c they're smaller, but they're not meant to be run for hours at a time. As I said above, fish uses more water in the canner so that you don't run it dry, and it's a possibility that a small cooker might not be able to hold enough water, esp. if you've got it loaded with jars.

I put 1 gal of water in my 23qt Presto to process tomatoes with squash for 35 minutes, when I removed the jars I poured the water out into a measuring cup and there were only 6C left.

Space wise, what's the difference between a cooker 'loaded with jars' and a canner 'loaded with jars'?

Think about it.

The pressure cookers of today's age are totally different than the 1970s and prior. I have canned in a 4 qt cooker back in the 70s. I WOULD NOT do it now. I didn't have anything else. It did work, but not worth the effort. I did pints, which fit well in my Presto pressure cooker. It was designed almost the same as my now current pressure canner.

Just like a person could stitch up a major cut on someone's body, it's just good sense NOT to do so.

Cooker don't take any more or less water, proportionally.

Back to the original post, to me it seems like the recipe creator was trying to save a favorite recipe without adequate knowledge.

Canner is larger in diameter, taller so holds more water (even with more jars).

7 quart jars with 1 gal of water was maybe 6" deep and plenty of room to go deeper in 23 qt Presto. 4 pint jars (same diameter as quarts, just shorter) in a 6qt cooker (if it fits that many - I don't know if 6qt is just shorter than AA's 10qt or also smaller in diameter - which is one of the things USDA found when trying to come up with processing times for the smaller pots) - how much water will it hold?

With PCing, it's not a big difference proportionally for the water, only BWB. Pints are not the same size diameter, if they were you could only get 7 pints in the 23 qt, instead of the 9.

The smaller canners take more time per jar than the larger canners. My 23 qt will hold 7 qts, but I use more pints and I can get 18 pts, versus the smaller (I think 16 qt) will still hold only 7 qts, but only 9 pints.

Canning the way I do, I need to use the most efficient method. It took me awhile to get these larger pans/roasters and such, but well worth the money.

It's one thing to use logic to extrapolate from a well-conducted scientific experiment to pose a hypothesis of how it will behave when one or more variables have been changed. It's quite another to leap to a conclusion without the research needed to prove your hypothesis. Even if you are quite sure that you have accounted for all the variables that were included in the first study, there is no way to be confident that the logic will hold without testing. This is what the USDA is trying to convey when they say smaller vessels are not recommended since they have not been tested. It is very frustrating to follow these discussions that have much logic to them and yet disregard the scientific method as if it is outdated. Seysonn - are you so certain of your ability to take into account all the factors that matter in coming up with your conclusions?

The argument against smaller canne(That is pressure cooker) is based on (1) coming to pressure time (2) cooling down time.

None of those is logical reason to use against smaller canner.
The difference is that smaller canner can only accommodate smaller and fewer jars and thus it is not convenient for big jobs. That is the only FUNDAMENTAL difference. The argument that cooling time is taken into account in processing time is lame. If you can adjust between 16 and 23 qrt canner you can also do the same between 8 an 16 qrt canner.

--- 16 qrt (nominal) canner has about 4 gal. volume if it is filled up to the rim.
--- 8 qrt (nominal) cooker/canner has 2 gal. volume when filled to the rim.

But in practice you can only fill it (w/ water and other contenst) with about 60% . So a 16 qrt will have 2.4 gal. usable capacity/volume and a 2 gal will have 1.2 gal effective capacity.
The difference boils down to 1.2 gal difference. Then proportionally a 16 qrt canner will have about 100% more exposed surface and that will accelerate cooling to compensate for its bigger ACTUAL contents volume.

You're right Marla, I was just going by memory trying to think of diameters, pints are much larger in diameter than half pints but still smaller than quarts (I don't have any pints out in the kitchen right now), my 23 qt (12") Presto says it can hold 7 qt jars but only 20 pints (stacked, so 10 per layer not 9, though I might still only do 9 to try to keep a little separation between jars). The pressure cookers I've seen are probably 8" in diameter or so instead of the 12" that the canner is, so hold fewer jars than my 10" BWB, maybe 4 pints instead of 6-7? Taller but smaller diameter than my 6 qt Dutch oven (that's also 10" OD)?

Proportionately the cookers may use the same amount of water (2-3"?), I don't know since I've never used them, but we were talking about the amount of water needed so as not to run the thing dry during a long canning session, I'm just not sure it's possible (which is a moot point since the processing times haven't been determined).

Seysonn - are you so certain of your ability to take into account all the factors that matter in coming up with your conclusions?
(lindapaz)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What are the factors ? Can you list them?

The aim of pressure canner is JUST ONE THING: To keep the food in process at a given tem/press, for arequired length of time TO ASSURE that harmful bacteria are destroyed.
THAT IS THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PRESSURE CANNING.

Once a vessel is stabilized ( i.e. has settled at the set temperature) from there on you just supply enough heat to compensate for cooling by convection. It does not mater how big or small in volume it is.
Then you come to the end of processing time: Take it off from the heat source and let it cool down.
The whole argument made by USDA against smaller canner is that they have shorter cool down time. AND APPARENTLY THEY HAVE NOT YET FIGURED IT OUT HOW TO CALCULATE IT. Duuh !

But Honestly , USDA is not pushing this issue as hard as some people are doing here. USDA "just not recommending".

That is why some manufacturer are marketing smaller PCs.

I said if Fagor had processing times, use them. I agree, if you can safely can (except for fish) in a 10-qt AA, you should be able to in an 8-qt Fagor without much adjustment (I really don't know bout the more common 4qt and 6qt cookers). But the problem is figuring how to adjust. If YOU seysonn want to do it, do what you want. All USDA is saying is that they haven't tested it, there are apparently many factors including food density and heat penetration, heat-up, venting and cooling times (during which the food continues to cook) to be taken into account.

I don't have a background in food safety, microbiology, etc. so I don't feel comfortable calculating theoretically how much longer the processing time should be for a smaller vessel but you're welcome to do what you want.

I apologize to the OP for this discussion getting so OT.

Oh, and sid, you may be correct, the Ball chili recipe has quarts for 90 minutes (assuming a pressure canner, not cooker) but I'd think the chili with beans would turn out like the ham and beans the OP posted about on another thread.

I've haven't tried to double stack the new Presto, but my Mirror can only do 18 pints. 1/2 pints even more. Most of my canning is BWB.

I'm not going into any of the rest of this post.

I'm just wondering why it seems to be so important to dispute or attempt to undermine the standard accepted guidelines?

On some of the other canning forums where one gets shot down in flames if they even mention the guidelines, NCHFP, USDA or any safety concerns the reason the posters give for attacking is hatred and distrust of anything that originates or has any ties to the government.

Other forums subscribe to and preach the "if it hasn't killed anyone yet that we know of then it must be ok to do" philosophy so how dare you tell me I shouldn't do it.

For years the participants on this particular forum have always worked hard to avoid both those attitudes and to instead, provide accurate information based on the standard, internationally accepted, guidelines with the proviso that the reader can then choose to accept or reject them. Other forums even go so far as to recommend this forum for information of that type.

So why has it suddenly become so important for two new participants to dispute everything? To ruin the reputation of this forum? To destroy the camaraderie that normally exists here? To disregard all the valuable information provided here and to turn so many posts into debates or arguments over the USDA guidelines? To drag so many posts off topic and turn them into their personal opinion platforms?

Exactly what is it you hope to accomplish with all this conflict?

Dave

Thank you Dave.

1) Instead of just one USDA statement "... not recommending pressure cookers..." BECAUSE they have not tested them,
I have not read any other reasoning opposing the use of MINI PRESSURE CANNERS (pressure cookers)

2) USDA has not said that "Tho shall not use them. ". Their reason for "NOT RECOMMENDING" is due to the fact that they have not done tests on them. So that is a failure on their part being behind the time.

3) A forum is a place to discuss different and often opposing views. Then the reader can sift through it and make his/her own decision. There is nothing illegal, immoral and unethical about a discussion of this sort. We are not passing a regulation or mandate here. Todays consumers are mostly educated and they can decide and make their own judgement.

4) what started this discussion was that I said a pressure cooker in principal is nothing but a mini pressure canner. And it was related to the topic.
Did I suggest that you should throw away your big canners and start using pressure cookers? Of course not. And in fact I mentioned it more than once that using them is not convenient and not efficient. But the principal is valid.

FINAL COMMENT.

So why has it suddenly become so important for two new participants to dispute everything? To ruin the reputation of this forum? To destroy the camaraderie that normally exists here? To disregard all the valuable information provided here and to turn so many posts into debates or arguments over the USDA guidelines?

Well Dave, the only thing I've disputed on this thread is your inaccurate statement concerning water/steam temps in a pressure canner/cooker:

More volume of water = less volume of steam in a container = lower temperature processing on the submerged jars.

In a contained and pressurized environment like a pressure canner or an autoclave steam temps continue to rise well beyond the 212 degrees of the water temp to 240-260 degrees or more depending on the nature of the container.

Which in all honesty kinda surprised me, I'd thought you of all people would understand the thermodynamics of a pressure canner. Evidently you don't.

No you disputed what YOU consider to be an inaccurate statement. While you fail to differentiate between the thermodynamics of steam vs. those of water by equating them and fail to differentiate between the times required to raise the temp in both.

Why? Simply to be disruptive, to nitpick my posts and argue.

The point is the canning guidelines as well as canner manufacturers and numerous other sources stipulate the methods for properly using a pressure canner. When home canning we don't have to be experts in thermodynamics. All we have to do is follow the instructions.

Those instructions do not include submerging the jars under water for several very good reasons. Putting the amount of pressure required aside, one being the length of time that would be required to elevate the water temperature to 240 degrees at the recommended pressure is substantially longer than allowed for in the recommended processing times.

Sure, you want to bury your jars under water, just increase the processing times to compensate. Just up your pressure. How long? How high? What is the effect on the food? How do you know when the water reaches the optimal temp inside? What effect is the steam condensation inside the canner having on the water temp? And 10 other issues.

But no, rather than just encourage folks to use a pressure canner correctly so you don't have to worry about those issues you want to obfuscate the whole issue by arguing that you can use improperly with no ramifications at all. Why on earth would any half way responsible person want to do that to others?

How often do we hear, "I read somewhere...". Well someone will read on the Harvest forum that you can submerge your jars under water in your pressure canner with no problems so that's what they did. So thanks to your goal of picking fights with me and others here rather than trying to help people that person now has a bunch of under-processed foods on their shelves. Yeah, that's a real service you provide.

Dave

Posted by digdirt 6b-7a North AR (My Page) on
Thu, Oct 24, 13 at 19:42

No you disputed what YOU consider to be an inaccurate statement. While you fail to differentiate between the thermodynamics of steam vs. those of water by equating them and fail to differentiate between the times required to raise the temp in both.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not correct. Where does the steam gets its heat from?
Steam in the closed system is water in vapor form at the same temperature as water. .

linda_lou:
"Then, it does matter if the water is that high..."

Yes, I agree, but from the standpoint of thermal expansion of the liquid that could rupture the vessel if there was not enough headspace given to allow for the expansion.

"....as you want to measure steam pressure."

Temperature and pressure of both the liquid and the vapor within a pressure canner will be exactly the same, except for some minute variance at points of heat gain (the bottom sitting on the burner) and heat loss (sides and top).

"Too much water, it has been determined will not allow for enough steam."

Yes, this is true, but I'm guessing this is significant for the canning process for at least two reasons. An adequate headspace of steam provides a cushion against turbulence that allows for a much more stable process, and, very closely related to that is the huge difference between the 'sensible heat' of the water and the 'latent heat' of the steam. Steam packs a much bigger wallop than the water does.

I think the real aim with pressure canning is to insure having enough water to complete the process.

This post was edited by sidhartha0209 on Fri, Oct 25, 13 at 11:59

It's disappointing how this tread turned. I finally quit following it but did want to post the recipe as ajsmama suggested as it sounds like it would be good.

1 lbs of lean Ground Beef.
1 Large Yellow Onion diced.
1 Quart of Tomato juice from garden ripe whole tomatoes with skins.
3 Tablespoons Mild Chili Powder.
2 Tablespoons ground Cumin.
8 cloves of Garlic shopped 15 seconds in the blender in 1/4 cup of water.
2 Cans 15 oz each Dark Red Kidney Beans.
Bring to a boil then simmer 1 hour stir often.

SPICES. Add the following spices the last 15 minutes of the cook so they don't loose their flavors and aroma.

8 sprigs of fresh Thyme or 1 teaspoon dry Thyme.
8 sprigs of fresh Marjoram or 2 teaspoons dry Marjoram.
12 sprigs of fresh Oregano or 1 Tablespoon dry Oregano.
1/2 teaspoon of dry ground Bay Leaves.
1 teaspoon of Hershey's Cocoa.
2 Tablespoons of Dark Brown sugar.
3 tablespoons of Worcestershire Sauce.
2 teaspoons of Paprika.
1 teaspoon of salt.
1/2 teaspoon of dry ground cilantro.
1/4 teaspoon of dry fennel.

OPTIONAL SPICES. Ground Red Pepper to make it spicy hot, 1/4 teaspoon for mild, 1/2 for medium, 1 for hot.

Garnish with fresh Cilantro.

This post was edited by dirtguy50 on Fri, Oct 25, 13 at 13:10

Hmm, wonder how much this makes - 1 lb of beef and 2 cans of beans is a lot less than I usually make in a 6-qt slow cooker, and with a teenage boy I'm lucky to get 2-3 dinners out of it (even serving it over rice or pasta)?

So, yield and the value of canning a few pints aside, I see some things you might want to change or question with the recipe:

1. Already-canned beans might not be too appetizing after cooking and processing - like your neighbor's ham and beans. If you want to can the meat and spices and add the beans upon opening, that might give a better result. Or use rehydrated dried beans like Ball and NCHFP call for.

2. The Ball recipe uses 5 lbs of ground beef and 2 cloves of garlic to make 6 pints of chili. Sounds good to me - I'd prefer more beef to the garlic in "your" recipe, you can add as many beans as you'd like later. The NCHFP uses 3 lbs of beef, 3C of dried beans, I'm not sure how many cups that is rehydrated, but yield is 9 pints so 1/3lb of beef and 1/3C of dried beans per pint, you'd have to see how many pints the recipe you posted makes to compare. NCHFP doesn't use garlic but uses 2.5C mixed onion/pepper total. This might be significant in determining proper processing time.

3. I'd go with the dried herbs instead of fresh, and also may want to dial back a bit since taste can intensify in storage. I'd cook it with whole bay leaves, then pull them out before canning.

The Ball recipe also uses 6C of canned tomatoes, with juice (so 1C per pint of chili). The recipe you posted uses a quart (which may work out to 1C per pint of chili) of tomato juice - still wondering what difference does it make if the skins were left on before straining the juice? I don't think there would be any difference between using canned tomatoes or store-bought tomato juice, I'll let Dave or Carol comment on that, also on the cocoa powder.

For reference, here is the Ball recipe (no beans). NCHFP (with beans) is linked below

5 lb ground beef
2C chopped onion
2 cloves of garlic, minced (about 1 tsp)
6C canned tomatoes, with juice
1/2C chili powder (you can substitute your own dried spices)
4.5 tsp salt (or to taste)
1 red chili pepper, finely chopped (optional)
1 tsp cumin seeds (optional)

1. Prepare PC, jars and lids.
2. In large SS pan, over medium heat, brown beef. Drain off fat. Add onions and garlic, cook until onion is tender. Add tomatoes, (spices) and salt. Increase heat to medium-high and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and boil gently for 20 minutes. Skim off excess fat.
3. Ladle hot chili into jars, leaving 1 inch headspace. Remove air bubbles and adjust HS, if necessary, by adding hot chili. Wipe rim with paper towel moistened with vinegar. (then describes how to put lid on, I assume you know that).
4. Place jars in PC, adjust water level (?) lock lid and bring to a boil over medium-high heat, vent for 10 minutes, then close vent. Continue heating to achieve 10 lbs pressure. Process pint jars for 75 minutes and quarts for 90 minutes.
5. Turn off heat. Let pressure return to zero naturally. Wait 2 minutes longer, then open vent. Remove canner lid. Wait 10 minutes, then remove jars, cool and store.

FWIW, I think you should just pick one of the approved recipes (beans or no beans) and adjust the dry spices to your taste so you're sure of the proper processing time/pressure. HTH

BTW, did you get a response when you asked about the recipe on the other forum?

Here is a link that might be useful: Chili con Carne

First recipe sounds like my original chili, except for the spices. It would make about 4 qt dutch oven, plus we added macaroni. We never canned it. never made enough.

ajsmama, the poster referenced the recipe for 8 pints. I don't like cocoa in chili so will leave that out. I may try it just for fun but will use my BBB recipe for canning chili. Probably will not be able to do that until next week. myfamilysfarm, sound like you are on the money with the volume the recipe makes.

I use about 1 lb of stew meat cut into 1" cubes, 5-6 cans of beans (pintos and black), a can of tomatoes, and 8-16 oz of salsa (however much Annie's I can bear to use in chili rather than eating on chips, or making into soup). That plus cumin on the meat at the beginning is enough spice for us.

never tried cocoa, but I've burnt my family out on chocolate, so it probably wouldn't have worked. I've made my recipe for over 50 years, after awhile you get it figured out.

Marla

This topic touches on most of what I came here today to read, write, and ask about. When I looked up chilli recipes, I saw that there are hundreds! I grow peppers and celery (lots of) and I like celery (a lot). I had 12-1/2 cups of sweet peppers left after I had already dried a pile of them.

So when I found a recipe that wants 12-1/2 c. peppers, 7 c. celery, 36 c. tomato, I was there! It said to pressure can at 10#-11# for 75 minutes for pints (the usual for meat dishes). I made sure there was no oil or other no-no and cooked it up. It is as spicy as you make it and you can add some shaker chilli at the table. The recipe turned out extremely well, all 64 cups of it. What I did not can I ate or froze.

My source adds canned beans to some jars and leaves them out for some jars (for a non bean eater). I leave them out because I do not want to fill my pantry with beans that I can save dried for decades.

I am off now to post about my bean canning adventure.

This post was edited by Randy.Canada on Sat, Oct 26, 13 at 11:53

After awhile, a few years, dried beans don't seem to cook up, so I wouldn't count on beans lasting 'forever'. I find after about 3 years from store purchase date, they just don't do as well. But 3 years is a long time.

Marla

Marla, not to cast aspersions, but I have "heard" that the wholesalers/stores know that beans can keep up to 20 years and so they put them out for 15 years... I would want to check out my own beans with the real year of harvest known, how long are they viable.

I'm not talking about beans for seeds, but for cooking. The packages do have 'best sell by' dates. Most everything has to have that now.

Beans for sale in a grocery store, to eat, what year were they grown? I think we would be shocked if we knew. I KNOW what year mine were grown! I know that they keep for MANY years.