Huge effort for very little return.
It's a myth that growing your own is cheaper than buying at the supermarket, especially when you factor in the cost of your time.
d.
Apart from the cost of time (& I quite enjoy tending my plants, so think it's OK not to factor it in), I find home-grown much cheaper. Of course, I don't buy any expensive stuff like boards for raised beds, auto-watering systems, compost (I make my own), etc., etc. I haven't bought a gardening tool in this millennium (forks, spades, rakes etc all over 20 years old, & probably with another 20 years in them) except a very cheap watering can to replace the one I bought in the 1980s.
Those who spend more on home-grown than it would cost to buy do so because they spend money with no view to the return, not because that's what it necessarily costs to grow your own. The fondness for raised beds I see as an example of this, along with some of the remarkably expensive chicken houses I see around. When I was a young rural prole, a chicken house cost the price of nails, wire netting, & wood, & the latter would be reclaimed wherever possible. Chickens were either bought as chicks & raised, or old battery hens (still got plenty of eggs in 'em, just not cost-effective on commercial margins), & fed on as many kitchen & garden scraps & as little bought-in feed as possible.
The idea of spending more than the value of the produce on equipment would have been thought insane. What would be the point?
