When it comes to fermenting fruit, I am mostly a cider guy, but I have successfully made wine from grapes, and have also used Montmorency cherries. All turn out great. I have always had the best success with Danstar Cote des Blancs yeast. It will finish very dry, but produces the most pleasant tasting cider or wine of any yeast I have tried. You can backsweeten with lactose, maltodextrin, or even fresh juice or concentrate if you want carbonation and fresh flavors. You can also play with sulfite and sorbate to kill the yeast for backsweetening, although my own personal results have been very mixed on this -- seems it sometimes works, but sometimes doesn't work very well at all and can produce gusher bottles. Be very careful with any backsweetening. I have also tried Splenda and I hated it -- tastes way too fake and chemically to my palate. Stick to non-fermentable lactose or maltodextrin and you should be in good shape. All sorts of fruits can be juiced and fermented. Try it and see what you think. You are limited only by your own creativity and availability of fruit. It can be a VERY addicting hobby. Almost as addicting as homebrewed beer, which is my primary passion. I am a Recognized BJCP beer judge. Never got the cider or mead cert, at least not yet. Someday. If you're into any of this kind of stuff, I might suggest checking out the Northern Brewer forums at http://forum.northernbrewer.com. That is my primary hangout for all things fermentation related. There are several others out there as well. Google them up.

I think too, we could chase the question in another direction. What if we asked and answered what's in the soda/juice/sweet tea that offers a potential benefit to the plant and is there anything in the leftovers that is potentially limiting?? In the juice & soda, we know there might be natural or artificial flavorings, neither of which are likely to be beneficial. There is water, which we know isn't a plus. We already know that some of the bio-compounds in tea are potentially limiting. So, we're left with the primary consideration, which is the sugar content. Let's clear the way by saying if the drinks are artificially sweetened, it's almost a certainty that it would have a limiting effect, or at best would offer no advantage to the plant. Even if it was needed and could be used by the plant, sugar couldn't be absorbed by the plant in molecular form. The hydrocarbon chain would need to be cleaved. Sugar (CnH2nOn [n is a number from 3-7]) hydrocarbon chains contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, which are never deficient under normal circumstances, so nutritionally it looks like the leftovers are a bust. What does sugar actually DO when it becomes part of the soil solution? It increases the level of TDS (total dissolved solids and EC (electrical conductivity). What this does is make it more difficult for the plant to take up water and the nutrients dissolved in water. The goal of a good nutritional supplementation program should be to keep TDS/EC as low as possible w/o the level of nutrients being so low it causes nutrient deficiencies. From this, we can see that ANYTHING in the soil solution that is not nutritional is going to be limiting. To illustrate why non-nutrients in the soil solution are limiting, lets say that in a plant growing strongly, 800 ppm fertility is perfect when only the nutrients essential to growth are present in the soil solution, and they are there in the same ratio in which plants use them. Anything lower than 800 ppm carries the potential for deficiencies, and anything above 800 ppm makes it more difficult to absorb water & nutrients. Skewing the RATIO of nutrients in the soil solution even when the total ppm remains at 800 is also limiting. Adding sugar or any soluble substance the plant can't use has to be limiting. At 800 ppm with sugar being 100 ppm, there can be nutritional deficiencies even if the nutrient ratio is perfect. At 900 ppm with sugar being 100 ppm the effect is limiting because it makes it unnecessarily difficult for the plant to take up water - the primary cause of spoiled foliage in houseplants. I'm done. ;-) Al

I sure wouldn't mind if someone gifted me with a SS compost bin, I'm sure it would look much nicer than my dollar store plastic 1 gal. bucket with tight fitting lid but I'm too cheap to buy one. It is an upgrade from my previous 3.something L ice cream bucket that finally broke. For any Canadians who want a SS bin or need filters for their bins I've posted a link below for Lee Valley's very nice "countertop compost pail" and filters. Filters supposedly good for 3 - 6 months each and cost $3.40 Cdn - that would be pretty cheap to keep the stink out of your house if you can't walk to the compost daily. I'm almost tempted to get bin AND filters. BTW if you aren't filling a 1 gallon compost bin every day or two you may need to eat more fresh veggies for your health. We have to dump the compost daily but would anyhow, I can't imagine leaving stuff decomposing on the counter or under the sink Always interesting to hear how others live. signed... Lucky, who obviously doesn't support consumerism because she's a liberal socialist Canadian (and a hick to boot) but who does get a kick out of the humor on this forum. LOL Here is a link that might be useful: nice ss compost bin & filters

An Update: I bought the 12" deBuyer Carbone Plus crepe pan & it arrived yesterday. The Carbone seems to be almost identical to the Mineral line without the 'green' hype & it was $15 cheaper on Amazon (with shipping taken into consideration); it's not blue steel but rather a light charcoal color. It's 2.5mm thick & heavy - & the finishing is superb & it's absolutely flat! I'm not sure what I was expecting for carbon steel but the milling is as good as my DeMeyere SS skillet. So far, I've only used it to fry bacon to aid in the seasoning process but the depth & shape seem to be ideal for searing. There's slightly more depth than a griddle but the sides are angled enough for easy food removal. And the most important functional part is that it not unwieldy if I want to finish in the oven.