Saving Money on Groceries

written by

Joel Salatin

posted on

June 5, 2025

The news is full of high grocery prices these days.  

Of course, Americans are still paying only half their per capita expenditure on groceries as 50 years ago, as a percentage of earnings.  

In other words, 50 years ago we spent 18 percent, on average, of our income on food; today it's 9 percent. 

Think about what we DIDN'T spend money on 50 years ago.  No computers, Netflix subscriptions, streaming services, smart phones, digital wearables, flat screen TVs, and conveniences like eating out, DoorDash, UberEATS, and Lunchables. 

Did you know Lunchables are $14 a pound at our local grocery store?  

That’s more than a pound of Polyface unvaccinated, unmedicated, compost-fertilized beyond organic grass finished ground beef for that price, with probably 10 times the nutrient density.  And without the toxins? All you have to do is cook it. 

Isn't it interesting what we've done with all that money we've saved on food?  We've bought convenience and luxuries unheard of just 50 years ago.  

When I was a kid, you couldn't go to the store and buy chicken breasts.  You had to buy a whole chicken, take it home, get a knife and cutting board, and cut out the breast.  Imagine that. 

Right now, you can buy a whole Polyface broiler for the same price per pound as the cheapest Tyson boneless skinless breast at Wal-Mart.  How much of the alleged high cost of food is for convenience? 

The interesting thing about this topic is that it's never been easier to cook from scratch, with single-ingredient items.  

By single-ingredient, I mean "potato."  "Squash."  "Eggs."  As soon as you start multi-ingredient buying, the cost goes through the roof because a roomful of people and machines somewhere manipulated, reconstituted, and mixed together, to do what folks not too long ago did in their kitchens. 

Our techno-gadgetized sophisticated kitchens would make Great Grandma swoon.

We don't have to go fetch water from the spring, light a fire in the wood stove at 4 a.m. so it'll be hot enough to cook flapjacks when Pa comes in from milking the cow.  

No, we have hot and cold running water, timed bake, refrigerators to reduce spoilage. We have bread makers, ice cream makers, InstantPots, crockpots, blenders, and every other appliance you can imagine.  

This ain't grandma's kitchen.  Never in human history has it been easier to cook from scratch, but never in history has a civilization been more nonchalant about it.

With our modern hurried, harried, frantic, frenetic lives, eating on the run creates unique logistical problems.  Goodness, more than 30 percent of all food consumed in America is now eaten in cars.  Can you imagine?  But scratch cooking doesn't mean you have to eliminate convenience.  

You can make your own convenience. 

For example, we put several stewing hens (old hens no longer laying eggs) in a large roaster pan and cook at 350 for 4 hours.  You can do this while you're at work on timed bake; I suggest having them finish at 2 p.m. so they can cool off before you get home.  In short order, you can pick off all that wonderful meat, cut it into chunks with scissors, and put it in bags or quart freezer containers;  precooked, read-to-go for casseroles, meat salad, or whatever. 

Did you know you can home can meat?  Yes, buy in bulk, chunk it, stick it in a canning jar, and can it just like you would green beans or tomatoes.  Now you have gleaming quarts of precooked beef, pork, chicken that will keep for years without freezing or refrigeration.  How about that for a prepper larder?  You can eat it cold or add it to a stew or casserole in minutes. 

We're hearing a lot about ultra-processed food these days.  

Some 75 percent of what Americans eat is ultra-processed.  It's not cheap, which my $14 a pound Lunchables figure illustrates. Take any ultra-processed food and make it in your kitchen with single ingredients and you'll save half the price.  That's how expensive subcontracting out all your domestic culinary responsibilities costs.   

From day one, we've eaten homemade granola. Teresa goes to an Amish bulk foods store and buys all the ingredients--single ingredients.  Sunflower seeds, rolled oats, etc. She mixes them together and bakes them in the oven.  Her recipe makes about a gallon and a half of granola that we keep in a Tupperware cannister in a kitchen cabinet. 

And then there's soft drinks.  Oh my.  You can get juice and add carbonated water to make your own bubbly beverages. 

Perhaps my favorite home-made anything is applesauce.  Each fall we buy several bushels of unsprayed apples and make applesauce.  Everybody can join in to cut the apples, cook them, crank the food mill, and fill jars.  We usually make about 80 quarts for the year.  Once you've had the real thing, all the store bought--and expensive--stuff is tasteless and inedible.   

The old saying "there's no free lunch" really applies here. We'd like to think our lives are richer by letting others prepare our food.  The fact is our lives are poorer, not only financially but nutritionally.  

I'm reminded of one of the most memorable meals I ever enjoyed at Chez Panisse with food guru Alice Waters.  Dessert was a clementine.  Yes, not cake or ice cream, but a simple clementine at this world-renowned restaurant. 

How could she top off a Michelin meal with a simple clementine?  

Well, they were from Michael Ableman's nearby farm.  He put compost around his trees and the clementines were divine.  Indeed, they were good enough to be served as dessert at one of the world's most renowned restaurants.  That's real value. Alice invested in the best provenance and, in the end, it probably saved money because it didn't require expensive adorning. 

In a time of burgeoning complexity, real connection requires returning to some simple things.  

Marrying our kitchen gadgetry with unadorned, single-ingredient food inputs offers royalty-quality at commoners' costs.  

Putting money in the best provenance and then investing with personal culinary finesse helps our bank account and our microbiome.  That's a winning synergy, don't you think?   

Joel 

More from the blog

Duplication

  "How does this scale?"  Whenever someone asks me that question, the underlying assumption is that production volume requires consolidation, concentration, and centralization.           In other words, the only way to feed the world is to make bigger chicken houses in one place, bigger canneries in one place, bigger machines and bigger warehouses.  I remember well being vilified by a Smithsonian historian at a food conference where he and I were both on a panel.                     When I dared to suggest bigger is not always better, he interrupted me and ranted for 10 minutes on why bigger is always better.  "A bigger fort was always bigger than a smaller one.  A bigger gun was always better than a smaller one."  He went on and on about how historical accuracy and authenticity demands addiction to bigger.                   But biology is not forts and guns.  It's not mechanical.  Critters have an optimal size.  As animal behaviorist guru Temple Grandin says, living things demand energy for three things:  reproduction, growth, and immunological function.  All three must be in balance.  When anyone selects for only one of those traits, the other two suffer.  That's why American dairy cows only have two lactations on average.  When they milk as heavily as our one-trait genetic selection asks, they don't breed and have all sorts of sickness problems.                   Nature does not scale through concentration; it scales with duplication.  If nature wants more oak, it doesn't make one big tree; it makes acorns.  If nature wants more milk, it doesn't make a great big cow; it makes calves.  If nature wants more tomatoes, it doesn't make a monster tomato plant; it makes a bunch of seeds that make more tomato plants.  Nature scales with duplication.                   At Polyface, rather than having a chicken house big enough for 15,000 chickens, we have 170 little 120 square foot portable shelters holding 75 birds apiece and giving us cumulative capacity for 15,000.  But they're spread out in modules, duplicated, to give us the production volume.                   We run pigs in groupings of 35-50.  A Smithfield confinement facility might house 5,000 hogs in a bigger-than-football-field-sized facility.  The stench is unbearable.  By spreading these pigs out across the landscape in small groups we get the same scale without any of the ecological, immunological, or animal welfare dysfunction.                   This could even be said of farming in general.  People see the massive corn, soybean, and alfalfa farms in the mid-west and wonder how we would possibly survive without those massive, single-species outfits.  The fact is they aren't even producing food.  Half the soybeans are exported to other countries; those markets are drying up rapidly with competition from other countries like Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil.  Nearly half the corn goes to taxpayer-subsidized ethanol.  The alfalfa goes to Japan and Saudi Arabia to feed racehorses.  By and large, all that production isn't even food.                   The fact is we don't need to produce all those commodities and even if we needed it all for food, we could do it in a more spread out, diversified platform.  America has 35 million acres in lawns.  We have 36 million acres housing and feeding recreational horses.  All of this could be turned into duplicative production, like acorns for oak trees.                   My point is this:  scale as commonly understood in modern American lexicon is completely anti-ecological.  The real mechanism for scale is duplication.  A more democratized production creating volume through multiplicative nodes is the way nature works.  This is why farms like Polyface, with spread out infrastructure in repeated modules offers multiple advantages.                   Polyface can't feed the world by itself, and we have no desire to build an empire trying to.  But thousands of Polyfaces can feed the world.  Indeed, they're the only way to do it for the next 500 years.  This is one reason why we invest heavily in germinating new young farmers. Our stewardship and apprenticeship programs are all about this kind of duplication.                   In fact, Aug. 21-22 we're hosting the Stockman Grass Farmer's Launching Young Farmers conference where we'll feature 8 of our graduates who were 20 years old, no money, no land, and at 40 are full-time farming without government subsidies.  If you ever dreamed of bootstrapping a farming career, you should come.  We still have room.  It will be the most profound agricultural conference in America this year.  Information is on our website on the education tab.                   For most of you, the fact that you keep us in business to duplicate production and the farmers who will carry these principles forward, indicates your heart investing in an authentic food and farming model.  Thank you for making it all possible.