Buying in vs making in house: four examples

A chef is proud that everything is made in house: the bread, the stocks, the desserts, the chips. The owner, looking at the labour bill, wonders whether that pride is costing the business more than it earns. The supplier's frozen chips are cheaper per portion than the potatoes alone, before anyone has peeled, cut or blanched a single one. Is the in-house version worth it?

The answer is different for every item, and it depends on things most kitchens never measure: the hours of prep labour each item takes, the waste it creates, the energy and equipment it uses and whether guests can taste the difference. Costed properly, some in-house items turn out to be cheaper than buying in, some much more expensive, and a few are worth making whatever they cost because they are what makes the venue special.

This guide works through the comparison of buying in vs making in house with four examples, bread, stock, desserts and chips, each costed both ways, and sets out how to decide what your kitchen should make itself. Every venue and figure in it is an example.

The question matters because prep labour is one of the largest hidden costs in a kitchen. A dish's plate cost usually counts only its ingredients, so an item made from cheap ingredients with hours of work looks cheap on paper, while the same item bought in looks expensive because its price includes someone else's labour.

Without counting the labour, kitchens make the decision on instinct, and instinct tends to favour whatever the chef enjoys making. Counting it shows the real choice.

Restaurants have always bought some things in: bread from a baker, ice cream from a dairy, cured meats from a specialist. Buying in is a form of outsourcing, handing a task to someone who does it at a scale or skill level the kitchen cannot match.

The question is not whether to buy anything in, but which items. Every kitchen draws the line somewhere, and drawing it deliberately, with the costs in front of you, is better than drawing it by habit.

Making an item in house costs its ingredients, the prep labour to make it, the energy to cook it, the equipment and space it uses, the waste from batches not used in time and the management time to plan and check it. Most kitchens count only the first.

Batch prep costing brings the rest in. Work out the cost of one batch, ingredients plus the labour hours multiplied by the hourly cost of the person making it, plus a rough figure for energy, and divide by the portions the batch yields.

Buying in costs the purchase price, delivery charges or minimum orders, the storage it needs, the waste if it goes out of date and any finishing work the kitchen still does, such as baking a frozen loaf or plating a bought dessert.

It also has a cost that is harder to price: less control over quality and consistency, dependence on a supplier and, for some items, guests who notice that the dish is not made in house.

Labour in a plate cost is the question many kitchens avoid: should a dish's cost include the time it took to make? For everyday pricing, many kitchens leave it out, treating the kitchen team as a fixed cost. For the buy-or-make decision, it has to be included, because labour is exactly what buying in saves.

Use the real hourly cost of the person who makes the item, including their share of holiday pay and employer costs, not just their hourly wage. A cook's true hourly cost is usually noticeably more than their pay rate.

An invented bistro serves bread with every main course, about 600 portions a week. Making it in house, a cook spends around eight hours a week mixing, proving, shaping and baking, at a true cost of about 15 an hour, so 120 a week in labour. Flour, yeast, salt and oil cost about 40 a week, and the oven's energy perhaps 15. That is about 175 a week, or 29 pence a portion.

Buying it from a good local bakery costs about 32 pence a portion, with a little waste on quiet days. The two are close. The bistro keeps making its bread, because the cost is similar and guests often mention it, but if the cook's time were needed elsewhere, buying in would be an easy change.

The same bistro makes chicken stock for sauces, soups and risotto: about 30 litres a week. Bones and vegetables cost about 20 a week, the stockpot simmers for hours but needs only about two hours of hands-on prep labour, about 30, and the gas costs perhaps 10. That is about 60 a week, or 2 a litre.

A good bought stock or concentrate would cost about 4 to 6 a litre for a comparable result. Here, making in house is clearly cheaper, and better, because the long simmering needs little attention. Stock is often the clearest case for making it yourself.

The bistro offers four desserts, made in house by a pastry-skilled cook, selling about 200 portions a week. The cook spends about twelve hours a week on desserts, about 180 in labour, and ingredients cost about 160, with some waste when a dessert does not sell. That is about 340 a week, or 1.70 a portion.

Good bought-in desserts would cost about 2 a portion, with a long shelf life and almost no waste. The in-house version is cheaper and, the bistro believes, better, but it depends on one cook's skill. When that cook is away, desserts suffer. The bistro decides to keep making two signature desserts and buy in two simpler ones.

The bistro sells about 700 portions of chips a week. Making them from fresh potatoes, peeled, cut and blanched, takes about ten hours of prep labour a week, about 150, plus potatoes at about 70 and extra oil and energy for blanching at about 30. That is about 250 a week, or 36 pence a portion.

Good frozen chips would cost about 25 pence a portion, need no prep and produce little waste. The fresh chips cost more, and in a blind tasting the team could not reliably tell the difference after frying. The bistro switches to frozen chips and moves the ten prep hours to the busy evening line.

Sauces and dressings are often worth making in house. Most are quick to make in batches, use ingredients the kitchen already has and taste noticeably better than bought versions. A mayonnaise, a vinaigrette or a gravy made in house can lift a dish for very little cost.

Some are not: complex sauces with long reductions or many ingredients may cost more in prep labour than a good bought version, especially if they are used only in one dish. Cost them like any other item.

Ice cream and sorbets are a common buy-or-make question. Making them needs a machine, time and freezer space, and the result depends on skill. Buying them from a good producer is often cheaper, more consistent and frees the pastry cook for other work.

A venue known for its desserts may still make its own, as part of its identity. For most, a good local producer's ice cream, named on the menu, serves guests just as well.

Pastry and pizza dough sit in between. Making them in house needs skill, time and consistent conditions, and poor dough or pastry can spoil a dish. Good bought versions exist for both, and some are made by specialists to a very high standard.

For a pizzeria, the dough is the product and is almost always worth making. For a bistro using pastry in one dessert, a good bought pastry may be the better choice.

The four examples show that the answer depends on the item. Stock was cheaper and better made in house. Bread was roughly even. Desserts were cheaper in house but fragile, depending on one person. Chips were cheaper bought in, with no difference guests noticed.

None of these answers is universal. A different kitchen, with different wages, volumes and skills, could reach different conclusions. The method matters more than the result.

The labour saved by buying in is only a saving if it is used elsewhere or no longer paid for. Ten hours of prep moved to the evening line, where the kitchen was short, is a real gain. Ten hours that simply become idle time, with the same cook paid for the same shift, saves nothing.

Before switching, decide what the freed hours will do. The best candidates are items where the kitchen is stretched, or tasks that improve the guest's experience, such as better plating or faster service.

Some items are worth making whatever they cost, because they are what guests remember. A signature bread, a famous dessert or a house sauce that guests ask about is part of the venue's identity, and buying it in would save money and lose something harder to replace.

Ask honestly which items those are. Often they are fewer than the chef believes, and the items that guests never notice are where buying in saves most.

Buying in often brings consistency. A bought item tastes the same every time, regardless of who is working, while an in-house item depends on the skill and attention of whoever made it. In a kitchen with changing staff, consistency can matter more than a slight gain in quality.

The reverse is also true: a supplier's quality can change, and a product the kitchen relied on can be discontinued. Keep an eye on bought items, as you would on your own.

Waste changes the sum. In-house items made in batches can be wasted when demand is lower than planned, especially perishable ones. Bought items, especially frozen or long-life ones, can often be used as needed with little waste.

Include waste in both costings. A dessert made fresh each day that is thrown away on quiet days costs more per portion sold than its batch cost suggests.

Making items in house builds skills and gives cooks work they take pride in. A kitchen that makes its own pastry, bread and stocks develops cooks who can do more, and some cooks stay because of it.

Buying in everything can make the kitchen's work more repetitive. Balance the savings against the team's skills and morale, especially for items the cooks enjoy making.

Making in house needs space, equipment and storage: a proving cupboard for bread, a stockpot and space to cool it, freezer room for desserts. In a small kitchen, that space may be needed for something else.

Buying in can free space too. A kitchen that stops making something may gain room for a better station layout or more storage for fresh ingredients.

The buy-or-make decision depends on accurate recipe costs. Write the recipe for each in-house item, with quantities, yields and prep time, and cost it properly. Our guides to recipe costing: one dish, from box price to plate and write a standard recipe card your kitchen will use cover how.

Our guide to recipe costing vs food costing: which do you need? covers how the recipe costs fit with the kitchen's overall food cost.

The prep list shows where the kitchen's hours go. Items that take a large share of the morning's prep are the first candidates for a buy-or-make review, because they are where the most labour is spent.

Our guide to the prep list that ends the morning guesswork covers how to plan prep, and it is the natural place to see which items take the most time.

A simple costing sheet makes the comparison quick. For each item:

Divide the in-house total by the portions actually used, and set it beside the bought price. The sheet takes ten minutes per item and settles most debates.

A bought-in item is only as reliable as its supplier. A delivery that does not arrive, a product that is suddenly unavailable or a recipe change by the supplier can leave a dish off the menu or different from yesterday. Making in house avoids that dependence.

Where you buy in a key item, know a second supplier and keep a small buffer of stock. Where an item is central to the menu, the reliability of making it yourself may be worth a little extra cost.

Bought-in items bring allergens the kitchen did not add, and suppliers sometimes change their recipes. A dessert that was nut-free last month may not be this month. Keep each bought item's allergen information on file and check it whenever the product or the supplier changes.

Making an item in house gives full control over what goes into it, which matters most for the dishes guests with allergies choose. Include that control in the decision, alongside the cost.

Review buy-or-make decisions once or twice a year, and whenever something changes: wages rise, a supplier changes its price, a key cook leaves, the menu changes or sales of an item rise or fall sharply. A decision that was right last year may not be right now.

Keep the costings on file, so each review starts from the last one rather than from scratch.

If your menu says "homemade" or "made in house", it must be true. Guests and, in many places, the law expect menu descriptions to be accurate. When an item switches to bought in, change the description.

Many guests do not mind bought-in items, especially from good local suppliers; some like knowing that the bread comes from a respected bakery. Name the supplier if it helps the dish.

An invented brasserie's kitchen spends about forty hours a week on prep. The owner and chef cost eight in-house items both ways, including prep labour at the cooks' true hourly cost. Stocks, sauces and the signature dessert are cheaper and better made in house. Chips, two simple desserts and the burger buns are cheaper bought in, with no difference guests noticed in a tasting.

The brasserie switches those four items to bought in, saving about twelve prep hours a week, which move to the evening line, where tickets had been slow. Ticket times at dinner fall, the food cost rises slightly and the labour cost falls by more, and the menu's descriptions are updated to match.

servearound does not cost recipes or batches: there is no field for an ingredient's price or a dish's cost and no stock in it, and inventory tracking is coming, so the batch prep costing in this guide is done in your own sheet. What it gives the sums is volume. The menu report shows how many of each dish sold for any range of dates, which tells you how many portions of bread, chips or a dessert the kitchen really uses each week.

Each dish carries its kitchen station and a preparation time in minutes, and kitchen analytics show the items that take the most time on the line during service and ticket times by station, which help show where the kitchen's hours go and where freed prep time would help most. See point of sale and kitchen and Analytics.

Cost both ways, including prep labour at the true hourly cost, waste, energy and space, then weigh quality and consistency.

For the buy-or-make decision, yes. For everyday pricing, many kitchens leave it out.

Working out the full cost of one batch, ingredients, labour and energy, divided by the portions it yields.

Often stocks and signature items guests remember. It depends on your kitchen.

Often items guests cannot tell apart, such as some chips, buns and simple desserts.

Only if the freed hours are used elsewhere or no longer paid for.

Once or twice a year, and whenever wages, prices, staff or the menu change.

Only for items that really are made in house.

Buying in vs making in house depends on costs most kitchens never count. Cost each item both ways: ingredients, prep labour at the cook's true hourly cost, energy, waste and space for making it; purchase price, delivery, storage and waste for buying it in. In our four examples, stock was cheaper made in house, bread was even, desserts were cheaper in house but fragile, and chips were cheaper bought in.

Use batch prep costing for every in-house item, include labour in a plate cost when making this decision, redeploy any prep labour you save and keep the items guests genuinely remember. Review the decisions when costs change, keep menu descriptions honest and let the plate cost, rather than habit, decide where the line falls.