Has anyone tried a Wonderbag ?

Same technology? as the old Hay Boxes

Similar to the old idea of hay box cooking I guess -

www.woodland-ways.co.uk/blog/outdoor-cooking/making-and-using-a-hay-box-to-cook-in/

The wonder bags are a bit pricey £60+, but they probably support women workers.

Is a slow cooker that expensive to run? If I buy one of these I would have to get rid of my slow cooker and it may end up in landfill. A nice looking item and good cause though.

Wonderbag sounds like a good idea. Sorry no experience of them but may give one a go as I am looking for ways to keep warm without heating on.

It’s to cook in AGAA !!!!

BlueBelle

It’s to cook in AGAA !!!!

You could use it as an expensive foot warmer!!

??? ?Disappointed but a friend used to use the hay box to cook large ham joints. Must save loads of money.

@Ohmother electric slow cookers use about the same amount of electricity as a standard electric lightbulb, approximately 1.44 kilowatt hours for 8 hours on low. It's quite cheap (you can check the current KW/h costs from your electricity bill and multiply by 1.44 to find the actual cost, to you). 4 hours on high costs about the same as 8 hours on low.
If you don't already have a slowcooker (or an AGA / Reburn with the slow oven ) the wonderbag might be an idea, or you can use the old-fashioned hay box as a pp mentioned.
The use of wonderbags (and similar cooking methods) in Africa is common. It enables them to slow cook using the pots they already have rather than buying the expensive western technology and using what may be an unreliable electricity supply..

A friend made a similar item way back in the 60s. It worked very well.

www.google.co.uk/search?q=A+haybox+for+cooking&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#kpvalbx=_3DAKY5GtHY6fgQbgsICQBw_32

Dizzyribs Thanks for that explanation re the slow cooker. ?

I am buying one of these later this month. Will update

I m tempted to Maistoprofus I look forward to hearing about it

I also think it's a good idea to update the haybox but am sorry that they are filled with polystyrene beads. I read they are trying to find an alternative.

NotSpaghetti

I also think it's a good idea to update the haybox but am sorry that they are filled with polystyrene beads. I read they are trying to find an alternative.

You could make your own using polystyrene packaging materials if you're the sort like me who hangs onto it rather than send it to landfill...

I wonder if sheep fleece would be a good alternative? Sheep have to be shorn every year but there's very little market for the fleece apparently. But it's a good insulator.

You would have to use gas or electricity to get your food hot before putting it in the wonderbag. Surely a slow cooker is much more economical, and easier to keep clean - I don’t like the idea of fabric.

Re the fabric - it's obviously washable as are oven gloves and tea towels - but I do see the problem.
I suppose the obvious thing is a wide-necked insulated flask. I used to have one of these when I was first married. I used it for hot-pot type lunches but it would definitely slow-cook without additional energy after bringing the foods up to temperature once.

A slo-cooker goes on using electricity once it reaches temperature. Maybe we need better insulated slo-cookers. The ones I've used are not as well insulated as I think they should be.

I've seen them before and think they're a marvellous idea. Still, I already own a slow cooker and it's wonderfully cheap to run. I do enjoy a good veggie curry (or chilli) and thick bean and veg soups when it's cold outside. I cook a lot, freeze some, defrost in the fridge and then microwave. It's a case of 'make your own ready meals' and very convenient.

Auntieflo

Same technology? as the old Hay Boxes

My thought on reading the OP. My second thought is that you probably don't need to buy it; you could make one.

I will extol the virtues of pressure cookers again. I own three that I've had for over 15 years now. Apparently pressure cooking takes 80% less fuel and also preserves the vitamin content of veg better. I use mine mainly for mince, stews soups and cooking beans that I have soaked from dried. I even cook rice in one. For rice it takes a few minutes to come to the right temperature ( it whistles) and then you leave it to cook, without any fuel for another few minutes. Chick peas take 10 minutes and then again leave to cook on without fuel.

I thought that food to be cooked in a slow cooker was ideally preheated before leaving in the cooker.

TBH my 50+ year old hygiene certificate makes me feel quite uncomfortable at the thought of that food very slowly heating up through the temperature range at which bacteria are most active (i.e multiplying) though I understand that it will reach a temperature high enough to destroy them.

But, if you do have to preheat, wouldn't that be much the same as leaving in a haybox?

We get fleece as an insulator for the meat sent direct from the farmer. That would be useful

We did it in the guides or sea scouts or whatever we were called back then.

Might give it a go.

Maizie I think we all agree it s similar or the same as a hay box but a modern uptake I ve never owned a hay box so this would be new to me

BlueBelle

Maizie I think we all agree it s similar or the same as a hay box but a modern uptake I ve never owned a hay box so this would be new to me

I was just looking at it from the cost angle because someone said that the cost of using the slow cooker might be over all less than that of having to bring your dish to boiling point before putting it in the hay box.

I was also wondering if you have to do that before leaving it to cook in a slow cooker.

I've often meant to give it a try, I've some 300+ bales of hay to experiment with... but I'm not organised enough to be preparing meals hours in advance

My pressure cooker better suits the last minute cook that I am.