First, its _economy_, not only of fuel and of space on the stove, but of
effort, of utensils, and also of food materials and flavour. It has been
stated that 90 per cent. of the fuel used in ordinary cooking will be
saved by the hay-box. This percentage will vary with different
housekeepers, as some understand the economy of fuel much better than
others, but there is no doubt that it is very great when the cooker is
used. This is especially true when the fuel is gas, kerosene, gasolene,
or denatured alcohol (possibly the coming fuel for common use). Where a
wood fire or, particularly, where a coal fire must be maintained, the
fuel saved by the cooker will manifestly be less than with such fuels as
can be readily extinguished when their use is over, but even in such
cases there is some economy of fuel. One must use the cooker to realize
the saving in work that it means. Think what it is to have a method of
cooking involving no necessity for remaining in the kitchen to keep up a
fire or watch the food! As most hay-box cooking takes a considerable
length of time, and many articles are not specially injured by
overcooking, this means that foods can often be placed in the box and
left for hours, while the housekeeper is enabled to go out for a day’s
work, or to occupy her time in other ways, with a mind free from all
care of the meal that is cooking. The user of a hay-box will soon find,
too, that utensils are not so hard to wash after lying in hay as when
food has been dried or burned on, and as the scraping and scouring given
to ordinary utensils wears them out very fast, there is here also a
considerable economy of utensils. There is found to be a very great
saving of food materials on account of “left-over” foods and others
that might be utilized, if the long cooking which they require to make
them palatable did not involve such expense in the way of fuel as to
offset the advantage of using them, such as in the case of soup stock,
tougher cuts of meat, etc. Special attention is paid in this book to the
preparation of a variety of cheap foods and “left-overs.”
The _absence of heat and odours_ in the kitchen is another of the
advantages of this cookery. On the hottest summer days a cooker will not
increase the heat of the room, while even in a living-room, onions,
turnips, cabbage, and such ill-smelling foods could be cooked with no
suspicion of the fact on the part of the family or visitors. The fact
that a cooker can also be made attractive in appearance, and used in
rooms not ordinarily used for cooking, is of interest to some people who
are not able to command even the ordinary amenities of housekeeping
life.
In the matter of _flavour_ there is a distinct gain in fireless cookery.
Many are familiar, by experience or hearsay, with the specially
delicious flavour of food cooked in primitive ways, such as burying the
saucepan in a hole in the ground, of clambakes, or of cooking food by
dropping heated stones into the mixture, in which cases the closely
covered food is slowly cooked at a low temperature. The praises given to
such cookery are often ascribed to the “hunger-sauce” that usually
accompanies outdoor cookery, but not with entire justice, for there is a
real difference in flavour.
As it has been well proved that _tasteless food is less easily or
thoroughly digested_ than food which has a good flavour, owing,
probably, to the fact that high-flavoured food stimulates the flow of
digestive juices, the advantage lies in this respect also with hay-box
food over much of the ordinary food served.
The bearing of fireless cookery upon the _servant-problem_ might well
fill a chapter by itself. Any woman who uses this device for a year can
become eloquent upon this subject. When cooking no longer ties one to
the kitchen, is no longer a labour that monopolizes one’s time,
dishevels one’s person, and exasperates the temper, the cook may go. We
shall save her wages, her food, her room, and her waste, and have more
to spend in ways that bring a more satisfactory return.