> Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the e

> Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the energy inputs from fossil fuels (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) Yes! Minus the corn, which is another farmland, fossil fuels, Haber Bosch fertilizers are things that only humans do. Are you saying that with all the technologies of modern farming, it still produces less than 0.25x mammal-consumable calories per square mile (9000 for rainforest vs 2000 for farmland)? That is unbelievable on its face, frankly, but also of couse farmland is not generally replacing lucious rainforests, but other bushland or something. So, humans and their farmland has to be enormously increasing the mammal-consumable calories per plot of farmland compared to wildland, otherwise farming wouldn’t make sense. The point is, there is only 1 animal (human) that drastically increases calories per square meter wherever it goes, so we (and livestock we choose to feed with farming) can not be lumped into any biomass calculations. 2) I would compare the species within themselves, and the “niches” between forests. Ultimately, I think biomass confuses more than it elucidates. Talk about ant colonies of Antium Washingtonicum to Antium Europium, don’t plop them into the same metric as Cougarium Washingtonium, in my opinion this is will lead to maybe nice-looking graphs with “findings” that are nonsensical.