Tip of the Week: Ingredient Clustering

When we looked at the Frugal Foodie Challenge entries and tried to choose just three, the head judge (aka Rob) couldn't pick just three - they all looked (and sounded) delicious! So ... we're making all seven entries!

And that brings me to my Tip of the Week. Since I'm cooking SEVEN full meals this week, I needed to buy a lot of ingredients. Thing is, all of the recipes use mozzarella, and some of them repeat on other things. So, I "consolidated" my grocery list - figured out how many of each item (for example, chicken breasts) I needed and purchased accordingly. If I had planned seven meals for the week that had no major ingredients in common, I probably would have spent $100+ dollars on the shopping trip - things like beef, chicken, fish, pork, etc all add up quickly.

However, because I was able to use the same ingredients in several different dishes (i.e. chicken), I spent less because I could buy in larger quantities.

Another great example of this is when I had first started the blog - anyone remember the Neverending Can of Tuna?? (To make a long story short, I made meals for almost 2 weeks out of a 5-pound can of tuna fish). Because I didn't have to shop for multiple protein sources, I saved a TON of money!

The other area in which clustering can save a few dollars is on expensive specialty ingredients. For example, I never use pesto. Until this week, I'd never bought it before. The reason - it's almost $5 in our grocery store and it takes a lot to eat it all. However, if I had three recipes (or even two) that called for pesto, I can split its cost out over several meals and use an expensive ingredient - without spending a ton or wasting food.

Have you ever tried clustering? Does it work for you? Why or why not? Leave me a comment!!

He Who Dies With The Most Toys ...

I don't know if this is necessarily a food-related post, but it does relate to being frugal, so I'm going to write about it anyway.

Today I was reading through my usual online forums and websites, getting caught up. A comment on a post about a man who saved money all his life and wound up a "millionaire-next-door" caught my eye. The man apparently was a janitor all his life, but through sound investments and frugal living, ended up donating two million dollars to several schools and colleges. I love stories like that ... if you live quietly, cover your basic needs, and invest wisely, there will be more than enough money for you at the end of your line (so to speak). However, the comment was more than disturbing. A poster who didn't identify himself left the following comment: "I still say that he who dies with the most toys, wins."

I hate to be abrupt, but that one sentence sums up exactly what is wrong with our society. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, but when you hoard it all for yourself and give nothing back - that speaks of greed. And honestly, he who dies with the most toys ... is still dead. And no one really cares, because that person never bothered to touch others' lives in a positive way.

As Rob and I work on managing our money, getting out of debt, and perhaps accruing a little for our later use, I can't help but think on that quote and pray that we never end up that hardened. Money is a tool - best used on others.

What do you think? Is the poster right or wrong? Leave me a comment!