Food Hub Methods

The establishment of food banks or food pantries for the local community or at postsecondary institutions is one of the most frequent responses to address the issue of food insecurity. These are places that offer donated or purchased food items that are accessible for free for individuals and families. While food banks can play a significant role in providing immediate accessibility to food, research shows that they are not able to improve general food security within communities at postsecondary institutions and on postsecondary campuses. Food banks concentrate on providing food rather than addressing the primary reason for food insecurity, which is income. This suggests that using food banks can be one of the less commonly used strategies for households that are severely insecure and faced with financial difficulties. Food bank services have been criticised because of their inability to cater to people’s nutritional needs, and for not allowing people to access food with dignity and in an acceptable way. Policies on housing and income can be crucial to promoting the security of food, however, when there are no system adjustments, alternative food initiatives (AFIs), including community gardens, cooking improvement programs, kitchens for communities, farmers’ markets food waste “rescue” programs, low-cost markets for food, and food budgeting, among others, can be effective ways to empower individuals to lessen the burden of hunger. The main criticism of AFIs is the lack of involvement by those who are most vulnerable to food vulnerability, such as those with low incomes, and marginalized, racialized, and vulnerable groups, in the design of programs. The food hub is increasingly used as a term to refer to a place of gathering (physical or virtual) that serves as the basis for resilient food systems. While food hubs can be different based on communities’ requirements, they typically comprise multiple AFIs, which provide accessibility to food and food education and wellness programs as well as the wraparound program (e.g. the employment service or enrolment for the public health benefits). Food hubs could look at food banks as an individual part rather than the whole of the solution that they provide and therefore can be an effective, sustainable, and sustainable approach to the problem of food security. Food hubs may provide a platform to build connections among community residents and facilitate participation in the community. While they are promising, food hubs are very new in developing sustainable and dignified systems for food security. The best way to achieve this is uncertain and can differ based on the location and population of each intervention. This scoping review was done alongside a group (staff, students, and faculty) participatory action study at the University of British Columbia Vancouver (UBC-V) campus. All participants aimed to determine the best techniques and efficient strategies that could guide the design and establishment the establishment of a food hub that will aid in reducing the impact of hunger on campus. The purpose of this scoping study was to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of existing strategies or interventions to support food hubs at post-secondary institutions across North America. The research issue was found in the literature on the best practices and effectiveness of food hubs, or other similar structures that help promote food security. The results might be relevant to the work we do at UBC-V as well as having broader significance to institutions of higher education that are considering ways to deal with hunger on campus.

Prisma Extension For the Scoping Reviews

The checklist was used to inform the conduct and reporting of the scoping review, including defining the population of interest, searching, and data extraction strategies. A reference librarian at UBC developed the scoping review search strategy, which used four databases, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CAB Direct, and Web of Science. MeSH terms and keywords included variations of the terms “food security,”  “food supply,”  “food or cooking,”  “universities,” and “students” in the title, subject headings, and abstract. See Supplementary Materials Table S1 for details. The research team (SS, YJG, and HSMPC) carried out the search plan. For selection and screening, every search result was exported from the corresponding database and imported into Covidence (Melbourne, Australia). Articles that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria—being published within the last ten years (2011–2021), taking place in a higher education setting, and describing an intervention, a summary of AFIs, or a food hub to address food security—were included in the scoping review. Exclusion criteria were food hubs that focused on the distribution of local foods and farmers’ revenue, community food hubs (i.e., those not in a post-secondary institution setting), settings outside of North America, focus on dietary/nutrition assessment or food safety, food security initiatives related to children/pediatrics/elementary/middle/high school, manuscripts with a sole focus on emergency food hub supply models (e.g., food banks or food pantries), or manuscripts not published in English. To choose the manuscripts that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, two reviewers (SS and RAM) independently went through each of the identified titles and abstracts. The agreement for the initial screen was 80%. Those with differing opinions were reviewed and discussed, and consensus was reached. Both reviewers also conducted the full screening of articles that were included in the title and abstract screenings. The agreement for the full-text review was 95%. Following a discussion, the lone conflicting article was later removed. After the manuscripts were chosen, SS summarized the study’s setting, duration, design, target population, and distinctive features. It also extracted the main conclusions, advantages, and disadvantages from each manuscript as needed.

Brief Overview of the Study’s Screen and Identification for Food Hubs

The studies all took place in postsecondary schools in the United States. The studies included a variety of designs, including only one case study, a pre-post research study for 7 months, an overall overview, and cross-sectional research. The duration of the research varied between a single point in time. The studies did not have an AFI with a food hub. One study (Frank and al.) concentrated on the assessment of one AFI—a food rescue programme, whereas Ullevig et al, and Morgan et al. [21] focused on several AFIs, a food pantry and community garden in Ullevig et al., and an education in food literacy that spans the effectiveness of cooking and food skills within Morgan et al. One study (Hagedorn et al described the creation of a toolkit to help in the development of multi-AFIs, but not necessarily for a food hub. Three studies that included students differed based on their demographics with a majority of Caucasian participants (92 percent) for Morgan et al, predominantly Hispanic (37 percent) as well as African American (22%) participants in Ullevig et al. Food vulnerability was a common theme in all three research studies on students, ranging from a low number of 28% to a peak of 59 percent. More details on the research studies that were included are located in Table 1. The studies all reported the success of their respective research outcomes, but the study outcomes were too different to determine the common factors that contributed to achievement ( Table 2). In terms of individual studies, major takeaways include that staff must be involved to reduce the effect on student retention within AFIs and a greater awareness of the issue of food hub insecurity as well as the importance of sustainability (Ullevig et al., The program for Food Rescue, as well as the food literacy program. Both reported favourable experiences for participants in these studies. In particular, there were positive outcomes noted from the pilot study conducted by Frank and Co. The study by Frank et al. included reduced food use of food as well as the normalization of food rescue. Some notable successes are the cost-effective and simple approach to the food rescue program online that they noted will help scale it up. In addition to an improvement in self-efficacy based on food literacy and confidence with cooking as well as culinary skills in just 11 weeks, Based on research by Hagedorn and colleagues,. Based on the findings of Hagedorn et al.,. The attention paid to content, layout, and initiatives/programs included as part of a toolkit for facilitating the implementation of AFIs is crucial for adoption by the stakeholders that will oversee the implementation. The studies all found barriers and weaknesses that hinder the effectiveness of AFIs and their broader objectives of attaining the goal of ensuring food security. For instance, Ullevig et al. stated that there was insufficient awareness of the program (community gardens and food pantry) as well as limited access to refrigeration, limiting the types of food donations. The program for food rescue observed that some of the participants complained that their experiences in the program were uncomfortable and that food was hard to locate or was running out. It was not possible to establish whether the number of food hubs wasted decreased (not an objectively measured goal) and the effect of the program on students’ hunger, food insecurity, and various other factors related to health, well-being, and academic performance. Morgan et al. Morgan et al. found that, despite the improvement in the area of food literacy, but no improvements in terms of food security. While the toolkit created by Hagedorn and Co. It was well received by all stakeholders, but they discovered obstacles to its implementation, including the need to build the research base for strategies to improve food security on postsecondary campuses. There is a lack of research that is available that provides an approach that is replicable for the implementation and evaluation of programs to combat food insecurity. In general, the research studies that are included in this review’s scoping report show positive results of various initiatives that address food hub insecurity for students attending post-secondary schools. Strategies like campus pantries and gardens, food rescue programs tools for food education in the classroom, and the planning and implementation of programs can help to address the community’s needs and broaden aid options that are not negative to ease the effects of hunger. However, the insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which AFI strategies are most efficient, appropriate, and viable in postsecondary institutions is a significant problem that prevents the recognition of the most effective practices and can be an obstacle to their application. The limited number of research studies that were identified during this review was especially striking considering the vast amount of research on AFIs and food hubs within communities. Research that outlines the processes involved in creating, implementing, and reviewing the food security programs on campus is essential for supporting larger institution-wide initiatives that improve the security of students’ food.

Food Web Decoding the Web of Eats

Types of Food Webs

The idea of applying food chains to ecological processes and studying their implications was initially suggested by Charles Elton (Krebs 2009). In 1927, he realized the fact that the size of food chains was typically limited to four or five links, and the food chains were not separate, however, they were connected to form food webs (which Elton called “food cycles”). The interactions between food chains that are represented in the web of food could be profoundly affecting the diversity of the community species along with ecological stability and productivity (Ricklefs, 2008.). Food webs are the relationships that connect species within an ecosystem. However, these relationships differ concerning their significance to the flow of energy and the dynamics of the species population. Certain relationships between trophic groups have greater importance than others when it comes to determining the flow of energy through ecosystems. Certain relationships are more significant in determining the evolution of species populations. Based on various methods by which species interact with each other, Robert Paine proposed three kinds of food webs that are based on the species that inhabit the rocky intertidal area along the coastline in Washington (Ricklefs 2008, Figure 2.). Webs of connectedness (or the topological web of food) highlight the importance of feeding relationships between species. They depict them as connections within an e-food web (Paine 1980). Energy flow webs measure the flow of energy from one species to the next. The thickness of an arrow indicates the intensity of the connection. Functional webs (or interactions in food webs) reflect the significance of each species ‘ role in sustaining the stability of a community and influencing the expansion rate of populations from other species. Limpets Acmaea pelta and A. Mitra In the community, people consume a lot of food energy (energy flux web). However, the removal of consumers does not have any impact on the quantity of their sources (functional web). The most effective method of control was carried out by sea urchins. Stronglocentrotus and Katharina (Ricklefs 2008). The primary purpose behind food webs is the description of the relationship between species that feed in an ecosystem. Food webs may be designed to define the interplay between species. Every species of the food web may be separated by basic species (autotrophs, which include plants) as well as intermediate species (herbivores as well as intermediate-level carnivores like scorpions and grasshoppers) and the top predators (high-level carnivores like the fox). The feeding groups that are identified as the trophic levels. Basal species reside at the lower trophic stage as the primary producers. They transform inorganic chemicals as well as sunlight to create chemical energy. The other trophic level is composed of herbivores. They are the first to consume. The other trophic levels contain carnivores who consume animals with trophic levels lower than them. The second consumer (trophic level 3) of the food web in deserts includes scorpions and birds, while the third-party consumers that make up the fourth trophic level are birds and foxes. The classification of all species into distinct functional groups, or tropical levels, makes it easier to understand and better understand the connections between the species.

Food Web Revelations

Indirect interactions occur when two species don’t have direct contact with one another however they are being influenced by an additional species. The species can affect one another by a myriad of means. A prime example is the predation of keystones as demonstrated by Robert Paine in an experiment carried out in the intertidal rocky zone (Cain et al. 2008; Smith & Smith 2009; Molles 2010). The study revealed that predation could affect interspecies competition in an ecosystem of food. Intertidal zones are home to numerous species of mussels, barnacles, limpets, and chitons (Paine, 1969). These invertebrate herbivores are hunted by predators like the starfish Pisaster (Figure 3.). Starfish were relatively rare in the intertidal zone, being considered to be less significant within the local community. If Paine was able to remove the starfish from his experimental plots and left the other zones unaffected as controls, he observed that the number of prey species found in the experimental plots decreased between 15 and 7 at the start of the study to just 8 (a reduction of seven species) 2 years after the starfish was removed, while the number of predator species was identical in the control plots. Paine argued that due to the absence of predators like the starfish, some of the barnacles and mussels (that were better rivals) eliminated others and reduced the general diversity of the ecosystem (Smith and Smith, 2009). Starfish predation reduced the number of mussels and also opened the way for different species to establish colonies and survive. This kind of indirect interaction is referred to as predation on keystones. Another intriguing study showed the indirect interactions between species that occur in terrestrial as well as aquatic ecosystems (Figure 4.). In a research conducted close to Gainesville, Florida, Knight along with her co-workers (2009) studied the impact that fish in ponds and ponds on seed production in plants. They measured and evaluated the abundance of larval as well as adult dragonflies within the vicinity of four ponds which were stocked with fish as well as four ponds devoid of fish (Knight and colleagues. 2009). The researchers found that ponds with fish have fewer adults and larval dragonflies than those without because fish eat young dragonflies. The decrease in dragonfly populations means that the numbers of their predators, such as bees, flies as well as butterflies, decline. Prey species that prey on them are pollinators for the flowers. Thus, the flowers that are close to the ponds that are not stocked with fish get fewer pollinator visits than the flowers near ponds that are stocked with fish. Because the process of producing seeds is pollen-dependent, lower pollinator visits lead to lower seed production. This research demonstrates through the complex trophic cascade the addition of fish in a pond can improve the chances of reproduction for plants that are growing on the ground (Ricklefs 2008.). Food webs depict energy flow between primary producers and first-time consumers (herbivores) as well as between primary consumers and secondary buyers (carnivores). The nature of food webs suggests that the abundance and productivity of the population at any trophic level are determined by the efficiency and quantity of the population at the trophic level below (Smith and Smith, 2009). This is referred to as bottom-up control. The correlations between abundance and efficiency between people and resources can be thought to be evidence of the bottom-up approach to control. In this case, for instance, the plant populations control the density of herbivores, which regulates the abundance of carnivore species. So, the number of herbivores generally increases as primary productivity increases in terrestrial ecosystems. Top-down controls occur in situations where the density of consumers can be controlled by their resources, such as when predator populations can control the number of prey creatures (Power 1992). With top-down control, the amount or mass of the lower levels of trophic level depends upon the impact of other consumers in higher trophic levels. A trophic cascade is a type of top-down interaction that defines the indirect consequences of predators. A trophic cascade is a type of top-down interaction where predators cause effects that cascade across the food chain, and impact the biomass of species that are at least two or more links away (Ricklefs 2009). Nelson Hairston, Frederick Smith, and Larry Slobodkin first introduced the idea of top-down control in the widely cited “The World is Green” assertion (Power 1992; Smith & Smith 2009). They argued that the planet is green because carnivores suppress herbivores, and help keep populations of herbivores at bay. If they weren’t, herbivores would eat all the plants. A bird-free study showed that there were considerably more insects and damage to leaves when plots were not populated with birds as compared to plots with birds (Marquis and Whelan 1994).

Energy Flow Across Ecosystems

Energy flow patterns in various ecosystems could differ dramatically between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Shurin and colleagues. 2006). Webs of food (i.e., the energetic flow webs) can be utilized to identify these distinctions. In a review paper, Shurin et al. (2006) presented evidence of the existence of a systematic distinction in biomass and energy flow distribution between herbivores and producers, as well as decomposers and debris, and higher levels of trophic level within food webs. The data synthesized by Cebrian and his colleagues regarding how carbon is stored through primary productivity in various ecosystems was employed to illustrate the different patterns of food chains in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Figure 5.). The turnover rate for phytoplankton is 10-1000 times more rapid than that of grasslands or forests. This means that less carbon is accumulated in the autotrophic living biomass pool, and the producer biomass can be consumed by marine herbivores at four times higher rates than terrestrial biomass (Cebrian 1999, 2004, Shurin, and others. 2006). The herbivores of terrestrial ecosystems are not as abundant, however, decomposers are larger than those in phytoplankton-dominated aquatic ecosystems. For terrestrial ecosystems with an abundance of standing biomass as well as little main production by herbivores, the food chain of detrital is the dominant food chain (Smith, Smith, and Smith, 2009). In deep-water aquatic ecosystems, due to their lower standing biomass, high turnover of species, and high harvest rate, food chain grazing could be predominant. Organisms capable of synthesizing their food will usually be the basis of all food chains. This includes algae, plants, and some kinds of bacteria. They cook their food, by turning the sun’s energy into chemicals. The process is known as photosynthesis. They make use of the sun to convert carbon dioxide into glucose, which can be quickly broken down into energy. It is stored in sugars to be used later. These are often referred to as herbivores. species that consume producers or plants. Sometimes, they can be prey for species that are higher up the food chain. A few of the main herbivores that live on land include horses, mice, chipmunks as well as birds, deer, and a few insects. Zooplankton, fish, snails sea urchins, and zooplankton are just among the marine primary food sources.

The 10 Percent Energy Rule in Food Webs

Although primary consumers rely on their producers, they’re still receiving their energy from the sun. Primarily, they eat plants and then break down food webs to release energy. Primarily, they don’t receive 100 percent of the sun’s energy through the farmers or the plants that they eat. This is because only a small part of the sunlight’s energy gets used by the plants to synthesize the food they consume. They receive only just 10% of the sun’s energy. The reason for this is the 10 percent Rule according to which just 10% of energy that is available can be transferred to the next stage of users. Animals that can feed off the primary consumer. They typically eat meat and are often referred to as predators. Snakes, hawks, lions coyotes and wolves as well as spiders are some terrestrial second-order consumers. They are the ones who feed off the secondary consumers. These are referred to as leading predators. They’re also known as apex predators, and they are not naturally armed. It is natural to assume that humans would be in the upper tier of the food web but they’re far from it. The predators that employ top-down controls on the species that are part of their environment are usually classified as keystone species. Humans aren’t considered to have the status of an apex predator because their diets vary and trophic levels for humans rise with consumption of meat. In the case of plants, they are considered to be on level 1. The predators that are apex are generally located at levels of 4 or 5. Based on research, human beings are categorized as having a high trophic level of 2.21.

Food Blog into The World of Sweet Temptations